Little wonder the liberal Democrats want more taxes and not less. History is a great teacher if one will take the time to look and understand how our economy actually works. But to do that, the liberals would have to put aside their agenda which will not happen now or ever.
Tax cuts have always resulted in more money to the treasury and spurred the economy to grow. On the other hand, tax increases have always stifled growth as history has proven. Where ever it is tried, stagnation is the result.
Do liberal Democrats get this? Reality isn't necessary to implement the agenda of submission, only managed information is used to bring the population under the control of the superior intellects of liberal leaders.
hmmmm - John Kerry has a superior intellect? Can we be fooled that easily? I hope not.
THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE DEFICIT MYTH
Source: Brian Riedl, "The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative.
Consider one of the most persistent myths, says Brian Riedl, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation: The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surplus.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see," however:
That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed; instead, it was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade.
It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues.
It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing?
According to Riedl: Analysis of the CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001 reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent).
Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4 percent of the swing.
If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007, says Riedl.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Health Care In Cuba is America's Future
Ask any liberal and they will have the answer for you, "It works in Cuba, why not here?" How many times have we heard this in the media and from our friends that sit in the front pew and swill the coolaide?
THAT FABULOUS CUBAN HEALTH CARE
Source: Bret Stephens, "Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care; The death march of progressive medicine," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
When the health care bill became law in March, Fidel Castro emerged from semiretirement to praise it as a "miracle." So it's a good time to check in on the state of the Cuban health care system. That's just what Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, does in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
The system is in an advanced state of collapse. It is bankrupting the state and driving doctors out of the medical field and the country. Its ostensibly egalitarian nature disguises a radically inegalitarian reality, with a tiny number of well-appointed clinics catering to paying medical tourists and senior Party apparatchiks while most Cubans take their chances in filthy, under-resourced hospitals.
Consider the facts as laid out by Garrett:
There are 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba.
This allows Cuba to boast of having the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, with one doctor for every 170 people, as opposed to one for every 390 in the United States.
Yet reality belies the statistics:
Slightly more than half of all Cuban physicians work overseas; taxed by the Cuban state at a 66 percent rate, many of them wind up defecting.
Doctors who remain in the country earn about $25 a month. As a result, Garrett writes, they often take "jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels," where they can make better money. As for the quality of the doctors, she notes that very few of those who manage to reach the United States can gain accreditation here, partly because of the language barrier, partly because of the "stark differences" in medical training. Typically, they wind up working as nurses.
As for the quality of medical treatment in Cuba, Garrett reports that hospital patients must arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets. Women avoid gynecological exams "because they fear infection from unhygienic equipment and practices." Rates of cervical cancer have doubled in the past 25 years as the use of Pap tests has fallen by 30 percent.
Sound inviting?
The truth is that socialism and related forms of command-and-control technocracy work as well in the health care market as they do in every other, says Stephens. Which is to say, not at all.
THAT FABULOUS CUBAN HEALTH CARE
Source: Bret Stephens, "Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care; The death march of progressive medicine," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
When the health care bill became law in March, Fidel Castro emerged from semiretirement to praise it as a "miracle." So it's a good time to check in on the state of the Cuban health care system. That's just what Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, does in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
The system is in an advanced state of collapse. It is bankrupting the state and driving doctors out of the medical field and the country. Its ostensibly egalitarian nature disguises a radically inegalitarian reality, with a tiny number of well-appointed clinics catering to paying medical tourists and senior Party apparatchiks while most Cubans take their chances in filthy, under-resourced hospitals.
Consider the facts as laid out by Garrett:
There are 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba.
This allows Cuba to boast of having the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, with one doctor for every 170 people, as opposed to one for every 390 in the United States.
Yet reality belies the statistics:
Slightly more than half of all Cuban physicians work overseas; taxed by the Cuban state at a 66 percent rate, many of them wind up defecting.
Doctors who remain in the country earn about $25 a month. As a result, Garrett writes, they often take "jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels," where they can make better money. As for the quality of the doctors, she notes that very few of those who manage to reach the United States can gain accreditation here, partly because of the language barrier, partly because of the "stark differences" in medical training. Typically, they wind up working as nurses.
As for the quality of medical treatment in Cuba, Garrett reports that hospital patients must arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets. Women avoid gynecological exams "because they fear infection from unhygienic equipment and practices." Rates of cervical cancer have doubled in the past 25 years as the use of Pap tests has fallen by 30 percent.
Sound inviting?
The truth is that socialism and related forms of command-and-control technocracy work as well in the health care market as they do in every other, says Stephens. Which is to say, not at all.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Trains Cost Millions for Taxpayers in Maintenance
What is it about a train that makes city officials go 'off the rails'? Here in Wisconsin it is the same thing, the state is broke but yet they are talking about a 'high speed train' from Milwaukee to Madison that travels at speeds about the same as cars on the interstate, which by the way, parallels the train tracks.
Oh, and by the way, the train stops at the airport so you have to take a cab from there to anywhere in the city. I wonder what that will cost you and I wonder how much you could save by driving your own car and be able to go anywhere at any time without paying for a cab?
It seems all the politicians see is the initial influx of cash but not the on-going cost of maintaining these monsters. In the end, it will cost the tax payers millions. Just what we all need, more taxes to support another worthless political boondoggle. And here is another item to consider, who exactly will ride the train rather that drive their cars? hmmmm Interesting enough, they don't know who will ride the train or why. They can only guess!
Madison is planning a trolley for this city as well even though rider ship on the city bus system is a bust and has to be supported every year with more and more money to keep it running. History has shown that where ever a trolley has been installed, it has failed to support itself. No matter, they say, it would so cool to have one even though it will only serve a small portion of the city. It will be so cool.
Why cause more pain for the tax payers? What is it about 'We are broke' that these people don't get? Who are these people?
WHY CITIES ARE BROKE OR, THERE IS SOMETHING TRAGIC ABOUT A TRAIN...
Source: Nick Gillespie, "Why Cities Are Broke or, There is Something Tragic About a Train...," Reason Magazine, July 8, 2010.
Cincinnati, a city that is down on its luck and its population, faces a $50 million deficit next year, but anxiously awaits signs that the feds will shovel some money their way to build a streetcar system in the Queen City, says Nick Gillespie is editor-in-chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is scheduled to announce nearly $300 million in federal funding for streetcar, trolley and bus proposals nationwide, with Cincinnati being one of dozens of cities in competition for the grants.
Cincinnati, which still needs about $42 million in additional state or federal dollars to fund the streetcar plan's $128 million first phase, has applied for a $25 million "urban circulator" grant from the U.S. Transportation Department that would significantly close the project's funding gap.
The city has identified about $86 million for the project, including $64 million in city bonds that Mayor Mark Mallory has pledged will not be issued unless the city receives roughly the same amount in state and federal funds.
There is absolutely nothing that a streetcar system could possibly do to make Cincinnati a better place to live, says Gillespie. Meanwhile, the city is promising not to spend up to $86 million unless they find someone to match them in this foolishness, unless of course, they want to go ahead and start building it anyway.
Even if the full $128 million budget is not in place, city officials have said preliminary construction could begin this fall with relocation of utilities to clear the way for track installation for a streetcar system that will extend from Downtown's riverfront to the Uptown communities around the University of Cincinnati.
Oh, and by the way, the train stops at the airport so you have to take a cab from there to anywhere in the city. I wonder what that will cost you and I wonder how much you could save by driving your own car and be able to go anywhere at any time without paying for a cab?
It seems all the politicians see is the initial influx of cash but not the on-going cost of maintaining these monsters. In the end, it will cost the tax payers millions. Just what we all need, more taxes to support another worthless political boondoggle. And here is another item to consider, who exactly will ride the train rather that drive their cars? hmmmm Interesting enough, they don't know who will ride the train or why. They can only guess!
Madison is planning a trolley for this city as well even though rider ship on the city bus system is a bust and has to be supported every year with more and more money to keep it running. History has shown that where ever a trolley has been installed, it has failed to support itself. No matter, they say, it would so cool to have one even though it will only serve a small portion of the city. It will be so cool.
Why cause more pain for the tax payers? What is it about 'We are broke' that these people don't get? Who are these people?
WHY CITIES ARE BROKE OR, THERE IS SOMETHING TRAGIC ABOUT A TRAIN...
Source: Nick Gillespie, "Why Cities Are Broke or, There is Something Tragic About a Train...," Reason Magazine, July 8, 2010.
Cincinnati, a city that is down on its luck and its population, faces a $50 million deficit next year, but anxiously awaits signs that the feds will shovel some money their way to build a streetcar system in the Queen City, says Nick Gillespie is editor-in-chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is scheduled to announce nearly $300 million in federal funding for streetcar, trolley and bus proposals nationwide, with Cincinnati being one of dozens of cities in competition for the grants.
Cincinnati, which still needs about $42 million in additional state or federal dollars to fund the streetcar plan's $128 million first phase, has applied for a $25 million "urban circulator" grant from the U.S. Transportation Department that would significantly close the project's funding gap.
The city has identified about $86 million for the project, including $64 million in city bonds that Mayor Mark Mallory has pledged will not be issued unless the city receives roughly the same amount in state and federal funds.
There is absolutely nothing that a streetcar system could possibly do to make Cincinnati a better place to live, says Gillespie. Meanwhile, the city is promising not to spend up to $86 million unless they find someone to match them in this foolishness, unless of course, they want to go ahead and start building it anyway.
Even if the full $128 million budget is not in place, city officials have said preliminary construction could begin this fall with relocation of utilities to clear the way for track installation for a streetcar system that will extend from Downtown's riverfront to the Uptown communities around the University of Cincinnati.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Energy Generation From Coal to Double by 2035
Little wonder why our 'Dear Leader' wants to destroy the coal industry. Remember what he said before the election of the "one' " My new rules for power generations from coal will necessarily make energy rates to skyrocket."
By do so he can cause industry to collapse and therefore American exceptionalism to diminish to brain dead socialism, Obama's true agenda. What a perfect way to bring America to her knees.
How is this possible to have our own president working to destroy our country?
Note: I had to delete the URL's list in the article as my system won't allow their existence - (I apologize for this)
Coal and Electricity Generation
by Carl from Chicago < on July 11th, 2010 (All posts by Carl from Chicago
*World Wide Growth In Coal*
Per the official US Energy Information Administration statistics (they have an excellent site, the link to this data is here , the use of coal for electricity generation will continue to grow over the next 25 years (their forecast goes through 2035). In 2007, the world generated 7.92 trillion kilowatt hours using coal, or 42% of global energy generation. In 2035, they predict that 15.02 trillion kilowatt hours of energy will be produced using coal, or 43% of global energy generation.
Thus in an ABSOLUTE sense power generating by the use of coal will increase by approximately NINETY PERCENT over the next 25 years (through 2035), and the total output of power generated by coal in 2035 will be approximately equal to EIGHTY PERCENT of power being generated from ALL sources today (coal will be 15.02 trillion kwh in 2035 vs. 18.77 in 2007, the year with the most recent statistics available).
The purpose of this background is to explain that the continued use of coal for the world as a whole will continue at the same approximate percentage that it provides today (about 42-43%) and that the absolute generation of power utilizing coal will almost double in the next 25 years (increases 90%).
Thus for all the talk of alternative energy, the reality, world-wide, is that coal is the largest share of generation and will continue to remain this way for the foreseeable future. So if you believe that we are moving to alternative energy as a whole, it isn’t true, and if you believe that coal is going away, if anything it is going to almost double in the next 25 years.
The reality is that everything that we make that is energy intensive won’t be made in the US – it will be made overseas (along with the jobs and tax revenues that come with this), and it will just be exported to us. It is the same net outcome for the planet as a whole, except that we won’t produce what we need and we will have to find some way to pay the other countries that provide it for us. And if there is an issue with rising temperatures, what we do in the US isn’t going to matter overall because we are not the largest part of the economy and huge investments in coal fired generation are occurring around the world despite our thoughts to the contrary.
*The **United States** and Coal*
For all of our talk about “renewable” generation, coal remains the largest component of US electricity generation. The United States has abundant reserves of coal and coal technologies are proven and cost efficient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new emissions guidelines that, if passed, will result in the shut down of many older coal plants that would require significant re-fitting. From the article: The rules will probably trigger the closing of the “smallest and dirtiest coal plants” when coupled with new limits expected from the EPA for mercury emissions from coal- fired generators, K. Whitney Stanco, a Washington-based analyst with Concept Capital, said in a research note to clients today before the regulations were announced.
The agency doesn’t know whether the regulations would result in shutting plants, McCarthy of the EPA said. The part of the quote that I find most howlingly funny is that the EPA doesn’t know if this new rule would result in the closure of older coal plants – the sad part is that this is probably true, because why would they care about the practical impact of a rule that they are considering? *Building a Coal Plant in**Illinois* The Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article about the Prairie State Energy Campus, a massive new 1600 MW facility being built in downstate Illinois, titled “Clean coal dream a costly nightmare
In the past I have taken journalists who write about energy to task for their misrepresentations and, while this isn’t a terrible article, the headline writer mis-represents the situation. The new plant being built was NEVER a “clean coal” plant as planted in the popular imagination; this plant was the last of the old-school coal plants with scrubbers. The plant will be one of the largest emitters of pollutants as now defined by the EPA just because it is large and will be run continuously (while many of the smaller coal plants will likely end up getting shut down, see above), since the citizens of Illinois seem to like their air conditioning and to run whatever industry remains in our state.
There simply is very little base load generation being built, anywhere, so once this plant is up it will run probably for the rest of our lifetimes.This plant is a “mine mouth” plant which means that the coal is mined locally and doesn’t have to cross the country to reach the site, which reduces operating costs. The plant also is linked to the nearby coal fields, so not only does it supply generating capacity, it is linked to its own fuel source should the price of coal increase in the future.
The cost of this plant has more than doubled since original estimates were made, to $4.4 billion dollars. The plant was proposed in 2001 but never-ending environmental protests and the non-value adding permitting and government process put it years behind schedule. In the mean time I can only imagine how many coal plants were put up in China and I have to believe that their cost / MW is a fraction of ours in the USA, even adjusted for the fact that this plant has modern scrubbers and many of the Chinese plants have little in the way of emissions controls (this is now changing, and it is likely that future clean coal technologies will come out of China since they are making it a priority and the costs to build a plant and the time lines are so much better than in the litigious USA).
*The Ultimate Outcome:*
Thus here are the conclusions based on the data above:
1) the world will continue to rely on coal for the largest portion of power generation.
2) the ABSOLUTE volume of power generated by goal will almost double in the next 25 years
3) building coal plants in the USA is exceedingly difficult, expensive and time consuming.
4) there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty about what the EPA is trying to do, and they don’t even bother considering the economic impacts of their actions.
5) the future decisions about how to provide base load power for the USA are going to be difficult and costly because coal is out and nuclear power is substantially delayed and non-economic; we are just relying on our existing resources until they run out and will then have to pick up the pieces.
6) these items will go with a power shift towards places that use low cost coal to run their economies vs those that choose to go with high cost sources; we will still use the same economic goods, but we will just have to buy them from someone else, similar to how we are hostage to those that provide us foreign oil today.
By do so he can cause industry to collapse and therefore American exceptionalism to diminish to brain dead socialism, Obama's true agenda. What a perfect way to bring America to her knees.
How is this possible to have our own president working to destroy our country?
Note: I had to delete the URL's list in the article as my system won't allow their existence - (I apologize for this)
Coal and Electricity Generation
by Carl from Chicago < on July 11th, 2010 (All posts by Carl from Chicago
*World Wide Growth In Coal*
Per the official US Energy Information Administration statistics (they have an excellent site, the link to this data is here , the use of coal for electricity generation will continue to grow over the next 25 years (their forecast goes through 2035). In 2007, the world generated 7.92 trillion kilowatt hours using coal, or 42% of global energy generation. In 2035, they predict that 15.02 trillion kilowatt hours of energy will be produced using coal, or 43% of global energy generation.
Thus in an ABSOLUTE sense power generating by the use of coal will increase by approximately NINETY PERCENT over the next 25 years (through 2035), and the total output of power generated by coal in 2035 will be approximately equal to EIGHTY PERCENT of power being generated from ALL sources today (coal will be 15.02 trillion kwh in 2035 vs. 18.77 in 2007, the year with the most recent statistics available).
The purpose of this background is to explain that the continued use of coal for the world as a whole will continue at the same approximate percentage that it provides today (about 42-43%) and that the absolute generation of power utilizing coal will almost double in the next 25 years (increases 90%).
Thus for all the talk of alternative energy, the reality, world-wide, is that coal is the largest share of generation and will continue to remain this way for the foreseeable future. So if you believe that we are moving to alternative energy as a whole, it isn’t true, and if you believe that coal is going away, if anything it is going to almost double in the next 25 years.
The reality is that everything that we make that is energy intensive won’t be made in the US – it will be made overseas (along with the jobs and tax revenues that come with this), and it will just be exported to us. It is the same net outcome for the planet as a whole, except that we won’t produce what we need and we will have to find some way to pay the other countries that provide it for us. And if there is an issue with rising temperatures, what we do in the US isn’t going to matter overall because we are not the largest part of the economy and huge investments in coal fired generation are occurring around the world despite our thoughts to the contrary.
*The **United States** and Coal*
For all of our talk about “renewable” generation, coal remains the largest component of US electricity generation. The United States has abundant reserves of coal and coal technologies are proven and cost efficient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new emissions guidelines that, if passed, will result in the shut down of many older coal plants that would require significant re-fitting. From the article: The rules will probably trigger the closing of the “smallest and dirtiest coal plants” when coupled with new limits expected from the EPA for mercury emissions from coal- fired generators, K. Whitney Stanco, a Washington-based analyst with Concept Capital, said in a research note to clients today before the regulations were announced.
The agency doesn’t know whether the regulations would result in shutting plants, McCarthy of the EPA said. The part of the quote that I find most howlingly funny is that the EPA doesn’t know if this new rule would result in the closure of older coal plants – the sad part is that this is probably true, because why would they care about the practical impact of a rule that they are considering? *Building a Coal Plant in**Illinois* The Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article about the Prairie State Energy Campus, a massive new 1600 MW facility being built in downstate Illinois, titled “Clean coal dream a costly nightmare
In the past I have taken journalists who write about energy to task for their misrepresentations and, while this isn’t a terrible article, the headline writer mis-represents the situation. The new plant being built was NEVER a “clean coal” plant as planted in the popular imagination; this plant was the last of the old-school coal plants with scrubbers. The plant will be one of the largest emitters of pollutants as now defined by the EPA just because it is large and will be run continuously (while many of the smaller coal plants will likely end up getting shut down, see above), since the citizens of Illinois seem to like their air conditioning and to run whatever industry remains in our state.
There simply is very little base load generation being built, anywhere, so once this plant is up it will run probably for the rest of our lifetimes.This plant is a “mine mouth” plant which means that the coal is mined locally and doesn’t have to cross the country to reach the site, which reduces operating costs. The plant also is linked to the nearby coal fields, so not only does it supply generating capacity, it is linked to its own fuel source should the price of coal increase in the future.
The cost of this plant has more than doubled since original estimates were made, to $4.4 billion dollars. The plant was proposed in 2001 but never-ending environmental protests and the non-value adding permitting and government process put it years behind schedule. In the mean time I can only imagine how many coal plants were put up in China and I have to believe that their cost / MW is a fraction of ours in the USA, even adjusted for the fact that this plant has modern scrubbers and many of the Chinese plants have little in the way of emissions controls (this is now changing, and it is likely that future clean coal technologies will come out of China since they are making it a priority and the costs to build a plant and the time lines are so much better than in the litigious USA).
*The Ultimate Outcome:*
Thus here are the conclusions based on the data above:
1) the world will continue to rely on coal for the largest portion of power generation.
2) the ABSOLUTE volume of power generated by goal will almost double in the next 25 years
3) building coal plants in the USA is exceedingly difficult, expensive and time consuming.
4) there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty about what the EPA is trying to do, and they don’t even bother considering the economic impacts of their actions.
5) the future decisions about how to provide base load power for the USA are going to be difficult and costly because coal is out and nuclear power is substantially delayed and non-economic; we are just relying on our existing resources until they run out and will then have to pick up the pieces.
6) these items will go with a power shift towards places that use low cost coal to run their economies vs those that choose to go with high cost sources; we will still use the same economic goods, but we will just have to buy them from someone else, similar to how we are hostage to those that provide us foreign oil today.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Obama's Agenda On Schedule : America In Decline
Big government, according to Obama and his liberal socialist friends, will bring America back from the brink of destruction. Really? For nearly two years now all we have seen is the American dream going away and in it's place is a socialist nightmare. This is not what our forefathers had in mind.
You decide what is the truth and what is absurd.
THE REAL TRAGEDY OF PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT
Source: Mohamed A. El-Erian, "The Real Tragedy of Persistent Unemployment," Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010.
June's employment report was disappointing. Though the national unemployment rate fell slightly -- it's now at 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May -- the report reveals deep structural problems that go beyond the number of those who remain without jobs, says Mohamed A. El-Erian, CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO, and author of "When Markets Collide."
For example: Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months.
The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago, continues to go up; last month it clocked in at 35 weeks.
Unemployment is particularly severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market are without a job.
The longer it takes to understand and address these issues, the more likely the United States will get stuck in a protracted low growth/high unemployment trap. In addition to considering the welfare cost of substantial joblessness, policy makers should keep in mind the following four facts, says El-Erian:
Persistently high unemployment erodes the skills of any labor force, especially when joblessness is a big problem among the young; this reduces future productivity and growth potential.
A high rate of joblessness puts pressure on inadequate social safety nets like the unemployment benefit system; it also exacerbates the strain on government budgets already stretched at both the federal and state levels.
Stubbornly high unemployment makes those who are employed more cautious; by spending less, they aggravate the economic slowdown.
High unemployment has historically induced companies and countries to become more inwardly oriented; many firms have already moved to a "self-insurance" mode, including holding large cash balances rather than investing in equipment and hiring people.
Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what will likely happen going forward. The greater the persistence of high unemployment now, the higher the likelihood that it will drive future behavior of governments, companies and individuals, says El-Erian.
You decide what is the truth and what is absurd.
THE REAL TRAGEDY OF PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT
Source: Mohamed A. El-Erian, "The Real Tragedy of Persistent Unemployment," Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010.
June's employment report was disappointing. Though the national unemployment rate fell slightly -- it's now at 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May -- the report reveals deep structural problems that go beyond the number of those who remain without jobs, says Mohamed A. El-Erian, CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO, and author of "When Markets Collide."
For example: Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months.
The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago, continues to go up; last month it clocked in at 35 weeks.
Unemployment is particularly severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market are without a job.
The longer it takes to understand and address these issues, the more likely the United States will get stuck in a protracted low growth/high unemployment trap. In addition to considering the welfare cost of substantial joblessness, policy makers should keep in mind the following four facts, says El-Erian:
Persistently high unemployment erodes the skills of any labor force, especially when joblessness is a big problem among the young; this reduces future productivity and growth potential.
A high rate of joblessness puts pressure on inadequate social safety nets like the unemployment benefit system; it also exacerbates the strain on government budgets already stretched at both the federal and state levels.
Stubbornly high unemployment makes those who are employed more cautious; by spending less, they aggravate the economic slowdown.
High unemployment has historically induced companies and countries to become more inwardly oriented; many firms have already moved to a "self-insurance" mode, including holding large cash balances rather than investing in equipment and hiring people.
Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what will likely happen going forward. The greater the persistence of high unemployment now, the higher the likelihood that it will drive future behavior of governments, companies and individuals, says El-Erian.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Marriage Conflict Always Interesting : Humor Is Good
Given the mess that our government is and the disastrous consequences that will result is we don't move fast enough and with enough resolve, which I believe we are heading in the right direction, it might be time to take a few minutes to relieve some of the stress in this noble fight to save our country.
Chill out for a moment with this chuckle about married couples in the constant struggle for supremacy. This is cute.
Husband Down
A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.
The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart.
'What do you think you're doing?' asks the wife.
'They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
'Put them back, we can't afford them demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.
A few aisles further on along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.
What do you think you're doing?' asks the husband.
'It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,' replies the wife.
Her husband retorts: 'So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it's half the price.'
On the PA system: 'Cleanup on aisle 25, we have a husband down.'
Chill out for a moment with this chuckle about married couples in the constant struggle for supremacy. This is cute.
Husband Down
A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.
The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart.
'What do you think you're doing?' asks the wife.
'They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
'Put them back, we can't afford them demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.
A few aisles further on along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.
What do you think you're doing?' asks the husband.
'It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,' replies the wife.
Her husband retorts: 'So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it's half the price.'
On the PA system: 'Cleanup on aisle 25, we have a husband down.'
Friday, July 09, 2010
Postal Service Rate Increase : Collapse Looming
How many people do you know that have stated "even if they, the postal service, double the rates, it would still be a bargain". Maybe those that have advocated this approach will have to take another look at where they stand. Collapse or total restructuring of the entire system is on it's way.
This is like the power generation industry, the more people save on electricity, the more they will have to pay as the facility stays the same size and the lines are still in place and so all the workers must stay to maintain the total infrastructure.
I believe there is a spot in the business of mail delivery for the postal service but it must be open to competition to find just where it is needed.
U.S. MAIL MONOPOLY WANTS RATE HIKE
Source: Tad DeHaven, "U.S. Mail Monopoly Wants Rate Hike," Cato Institute, July 6, 2010.
The long-term prospects for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) monopoly are bleak, says Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute.
To help stem the flow of red ink, the USPS intends to seek a rate increase. Only a government monopoly would try to raise prices when the demand for its services is plummeting. The rate increase will only push its already declining customer base to use cheaper, more efficient electronic alternatives, says DeHaven.
In contrast, countries around the world are continuing to liberalize their postal markets by embracing competition and private sector involvement. Britain is a good example:
In 1969, the British Post Office transformed from a government agency into a corporation, Royal Mail; however, the company's shares are owned by the government.
In 2006, Royal Mail's regulator removed its monopoly and opened British mail delivery to full competition, which the postal unions opposed.
According to the Daily Mail: The British government is now prepared to take the next step -- privatization. In doing so, the government is considering transferring a portion of Royal Mail's shares to its employees. Giving the employees ownership stakes would inhibit the unions' ability to extract concessions that would negatively affect the company's bottom line.
Like their counterparts in the United States, the British postal unions are a hindrance to effective and efficient postal management. With e-mail and other technologies undermining traditional mail, neutering the inflexibility caused by unions is paramount for mail operations here and abroad, says DeHaven.
This is like the power generation industry, the more people save on electricity, the more they will have to pay as the facility stays the same size and the lines are still in place and so all the workers must stay to maintain the total infrastructure.
I believe there is a spot in the business of mail delivery for the postal service but it must be open to competition to find just where it is needed.
U.S. MAIL MONOPOLY WANTS RATE HIKE
Source: Tad DeHaven, "U.S. Mail Monopoly Wants Rate Hike," Cato Institute, July 6, 2010.
The long-term prospects for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) monopoly are bleak, says Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute.
To help stem the flow of red ink, the USPS intends to seek a rate increase. Only a government monopoly would try to raise prices when the demand for its services is plummeting. The rate increase will only push its already declining customer base to use cheaper, more efficient electronic alternatives, says DeHaven.
In contrast, countries around the world are continuing to liberalize their postal markets by embracing competition and private sector involvement. Britain is a good example:
In 1969, the British Post Office transformed from a government agency into a corporation, Royal Mail; however, the company's shares are owned by the government.
In 2006, Royal Mail's regulator removed its monopoly and opened British mail delivery to full competition, which the postal unions opposed.
According to the Daily Mail: The British government is now prepared to take the next step -- privatization. In doing so, the government is considering transferring a portion of Royal Mail's shares to its employees. Giving the employees ownership stakes would inhibit the unions' ability to extract concessions that would negatively affect the company's bottom line.
Like their counterparts in the United States, the British postal unions are a hindrance to effective and efficient postal management. With e-mail and other technologies undermining traditional mail, neutering the inflexibility caused by unions is paramount for mail operations here and abroad, says DeHaven.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Wind Power Said A Boondoggle In Mass. : Environmental Disaster
This is the first part of a larger article on wind power from Wisconsin Energy Cooperative magazine, that targets the costs and (benefits?) of wind power - it's long in it's entirety but lays out what is happening in Massachusetts and around the country.
More to come.
Thar She Blows! Offshore wind: Green dream or white whale?
David Hoopman WEC
For 10 years, America’s first offshore wind energy project has navigated the perilous regulatory channels of Boston and the Potomac, shadowed and stalked by some whom, it can fairly be said, would otherwise be champions of renewable energy.
Cape Wind cleared federal regulatory hurdles this spring. It will spread 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet tall, across 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Federal documents issued April 28, when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed off on the project, say the array is expected to yield an average output of 182 megawatts, about three-fourths of the electrical demand from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island.
Frustrated in the decade-long quest to sink a harpoon into the project are the Kennedy family, the late Walter Cronkite, and former U.S. Senator John Warner (R–VA, retired 2009), owners of homes and vacation properties in sight of the planned wind farm. At press time, at least nine potential plaintiffs were contemplating whether to take their shot in court, eyeing allegations that the project and its regulatory approvals violate the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other federal environmental laws.
Groups that said they might file lawsuits included local government and fishing clubs; two Wampanoag Indian tribes; the Animal Welfare Institute; Californians for Renewable Energy; and the Oceans Public Trust Initiative, affiliated with the Earth Island Institute.
Announcing his April decision to let the project proceed, Salazar said, “The need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of Nantucket Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing new renewable energy sources and strengthening our nation’s energy security while battling climate change and creating jobs.”
But the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a center of relentless opposition since the beginning, dismisses talk of environmental improvements. The alliance cites at least two factors: fossil-fueled generation running constantly as backup for when the wind stops blowing and the existing system of limits capping power-plant emissions “in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run.”
More to come.
Thar She Blows! Offshore wind: Green dream or white whale?
David Hoopman WEC
For 10 years, America’s first offshore wind energy project has navigated the perilous regulatory channels of Boston and the Potomac, shadowed and stalked by some whom, it can fairly be said, would otherwise be champions of renewable energy.
Cape Wind cleared federal regulatory hurdles this spring. It will spread 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet tall, across 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Federal documents issued April 28, when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed off on the project, say the array is expected to yield an average output of 182 megawatts, about three-fourths of the electrical demand from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island.
Frustrated in the decade-long quest to sink a harpoon into the project are the Kennedy family, the late Walter Cronkite, and former U.S. Senator John Warner (R–VA, retired 2009), owners of homes and vacation properties in sight of the planned wind farm. At press time, at least nine potential plaintiffs were contemplating whether to take their shot in court, eyeing allegations that the project and its regulatory approvals violate the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other federal environmental laws.
Groups that said they might file lawsuits included local government and fishing clubs; two Wampanoag Indian tribes; the Animal Welfare Institute; Californians for Renewable Energy; and the Oceans Public Trust Initiative, affiliated with the Earth Island Institute.
Announcing his April decision to let the project proceed, Salazar said, “The need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of Nantucket Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing new renewable energy sources and strengthening our nation’s energy security while battling climate change and creating jobs.”
But the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a center of relentless opposition since the beginning, dismisses talk of environmental improvements. The alliance cites at least two factors: fossil-fueled generation running constantly as backup for when the wind stops blowing and the existing system of limits capping power-plant emissions “in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run.”
Liberal Democrats In Bed with Big Lobbyists
After reading this, think about how the health care bill got written and just who wrote it. The whole thing was written behind closed doors with no input from Republicans or Conservatives. None!!
So just who is being controlled by lobbyists the most, and just who has all the money to hand out to special interests - yep - liberal Democrats.
A PLAGUE OF LOBBYISTS
Source: Ronald Bailey, "A plague of lobbyists: you get what you pay for," Reason Magazine, July 2010.
As Congress debated health care reform, the lobbying industry's representatives invaded Capitol Hill. Some got into the game to protect their interests against redistribution while others were digging for special subsidies, tax breaks and regulations at the expense of their competitors, says Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent for Reason Magazine.
The nonprofit Center for Public Integrity reported in March that an analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists -- eight for each member of Congress -- to influence health reform bills in 2009.
Lobbyists for unions opposed taxes on gold-plated health insurance plans;
lobbyists for doctors opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements;
a lobbyist for Dunkin Donuts opposed a soda tax to pay for health care reform;
and a Cigar Association lobbyist fought a tobacco tax.
The Center for Public Integrity noted that 2009 was a boom year for influence peddling overall, with business and advocacy groups shelling out $3.47 billion for lobbyists. Although it is hard to quantify the exact amount spent on trying to influence health care legislation, the groups lobbying the issue spent about $1.2 billion, says Bailey.
So just who is being controlled by lobbyists the most, and just who has all the money to hand out to special interests - yep - liberal Democrats.
A PLAGUE OF LOBBYISTS
Source: Ronald Bailey, "A plague of lobbyists: you get what you pay for," Reason Magazine, July 2010.
As Congress debated health care reform, the lobbying industry's representatives invaded Capitol Hill. Some got into the game to protect their interests against redistribution while others were digging for special subsidies, tax breaks and regulations at the expense of their competitors, says Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent for Reason Magazine.
The nonprofit Center for Public Integrity reported in March that an analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists -- eight for each member of Congress -- to influence health reform bills in 2009.
Lobbyists for unions opposed taxes on gold-plated health insurance plans;
lobbyists for doctors opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements;
a lobbyist for Dunkin Donuts opposed a soda tax to pay for health care reform;
and a Cigar Association lobbyist fought a tobacco tax.
The Center for Public Integrity noted that 2009 was a boom year for influence peddling overall, with business and advocacy groups shelling out $3.47 billion for lobbyists. Although it is hard to quantify the exact amount spent on trying to influence health care legislation, the groups lobbying the issue spent about $1.2 billion, says Bailey.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
McChrystal Knew What He Was Doing : He Is No Fool
This story tells us some of the things that we all thought to be true about McChrystal even before he resigned his commission. The man is not stupid even though he is a liberal, so we are told. Truly a paradox.
In any even, he had to know what he was doing when he talked to a left wing ideologue news person. This is a much over looked story and will come full circle when McChrystal writes his book.
(Note : I did not verify who Paul Hollrah is but I agree with his assumptions - The Slickster!)
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystals top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads inthe Western World, was that they are all wrong dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded fordays.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was very aware that his comments would find their way into print. Hesaid, McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, TheRunaway General.
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked uncomfortable and intimidated by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was a 10-minute photo op. He went on to say, Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent thoughtful, highly educated, patriots…graduates of West Point and other fine univeersities…who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic…at the very least.
To thinnk that men whoare trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. From the day that he became the handpicked spear carrier for Obama unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McCChrystal life had been one of constant frustration.
After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that. The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.
One video tape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. Under Obama politically correct ROE, our soldiers andMarines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restraint in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.
It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title ofCommander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.
To make the most of thatopportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obamain front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.
But they could not take a chance that a mainstreammedia reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices…both bad. He could declare McChrystaal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options. But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a…Community Organizer. Well done, General! MY WORDS - CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK. IT WILL BE A BEST SELLER!!!
In any even, he had to know what he was doing when he talked to a left wing ideologue news person. This is a much over looked story and will come full circle when McChrystal writes his book.
(Note : I did not verify who Paul Hollrah is but I agree with his assumptions - The Slickster!)
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystals top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads inthe Western World, was that they are all wrong dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded fordays.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was very aware that his comments would find their way into print. Hesaid, McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, TheRunaway General.
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked uncomfortable and intimidated by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was a 10-minute photo op. He went on to say, Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent thoughtful, highly educated, patriots…graduates of West Point and other fine univeersities…who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic…at the very least.
To thinnk that men whoare trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. From the day that he became the handpicked spear carrier for Obama unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McCChrystal life had been one of constant frustration.
After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that. The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.
One video tape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. Under Obama politically correct ROE, our soldiers andMarines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restraint in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.
It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title ofCommander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.
To make the most of thatopportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obamain front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.
But they could not take a chance that a mainstreammedia reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices…both bad. He could declare McChrystaal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options. But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a…Community Organizer. Well done, General! MY WORDS - CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK. IT WILL BE A BEST SELLER!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
