Memorial Day 2013
 |
| Courtesy of All Things Anderson |
True love stories never have endings.
Richard Bach
Paul Krugman and "Spectacularly Uncivil Behavior"
In 2010 Harvard professors Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff wrote a widely cited paper citing a link between high statist debt levels and slower economic growth. Krugman, who has been calling for very large federal spending increases, finds their most recent work politically inconvenient. They have finally drafted a readable, well-organized response on the former author's website , where, among other things, they basically point out that Krugman is creating a straw man, that they have not been advocating for sharp, short-term austerity, like some targeted spending (e.g., education and infrastructure), see moderate inflation as helpful in cutting down debt load, etc. I almost wish they didn't work so hard at making their point that they aren't the poster children for the conservative pro-liberty movement that people seem to think they are.
I, of course, am to the right of the professors on much of what I just described; I am far more skeptical of statist policymakers on either the fiscal or monetary front. I think the last thing we need to worry about is drastic austerity with a Democratic-controlled Senate or White House. Our federal budget has nearly doubled over the past dozen years or so while the Democrats do the Chicken Little routine over mere pocket change. But even so, hearing one of the professors say something positive things over Simpson-Bowles is a step in the right direction over Krugman.
"Compassionate" Progressivism
The Story Behind a Hit Country Song
On this Memorial Day weekend, Lee Brice’s “I Drive Your Truck” is the most played song in country music. The song was written after one of its songwriters heard an interview on National Public Radio. It was with the father of Sergeant First Class Jared Monti, the Fort Drum soldier killed back in 2006 trying to save members of his patrol after an attack in Afghanistan.Paul Monti was describing how he still drives his son's truck to feel close to him.Lee Habeeb of NRO continues and retells one of the Gold Star dad's stories about his late son:
[Jared's] truck was a Dodge 4X4 Ram 1500 with decals on it that included the 10th Mountain Division, the 82nd Airborne Division, an American flag, and a Go Army sticker.
A Nashville songwriter named Connie Harrington was in her car, too, listening to the very same [interview]. Jared’s father got a message on Facebook from a woman whose son had died in the same battle Jared died in. “She sent me a message that she had heard the song,” Paul Monti told NPR last week, “and that I had to listen to it. She knew I drove Jared’s truck and she drove her son’s truck.”
His grief was palpable, as he told the NPR reporter some stories about his son. Stories of how his son was always helping people, especially people less fortunate than himself. His father nearly choked up telling a story about how his son once took a brand-new kitchen [dining] set he and his buddies at Fort Bragg had just purchased for their home, and gave it away to a fellow soldier’s family. “One day his buddies came home and the kitchen set was missing,” his father recounted. “And they asked him where it was and Jared said, ‘Well, I was over at one of my soldier’s houses, and his kids were eating on the floor, so I figured they needed the kitchen set more than we did.’ And so the $700 kitchen set disappeared. That’s what he did.”Eighty-nine cents in the ashtray
Half-empty bottle of Gatorade
Rollin’ on the floorboard
That dirty Braves cap on the dash
Dogtags hangin’ from the rearview
Old Skoal can and cowboy boots
And a “Go Army” shirt folded in the back
This thing burns gas like crazy
But that’s all right
People got their ways of copin’
Oh, and I’ve got mine
I drive your truck
I roll every window down
And I burn up
Every back road in this town
I find a field, I tear it up
Till all the pain is a cloud of dust
Yes, sometimes, I drive your truck
Winning Contestant for Most Rants in a Minute
I've never bought into fear-mongering over innovation in food production. Since 1960, while land devoted to agriculture, roughly just under 40%, has remained about the same, overall yield has more than doubled, due to a number of factors: improved technology (machinery, irrigation), higher-yielding crops, pesticides, etc. (See this piece by Bailey on so-called peak farmland.) Bailey here discusses the preponderance of peer-reviewed, independent scientific evidence across various scientific and international organizations supporting the overall safety of genetically modified (GMO) crops, in the food supply for over a generation and various agenda-related crackpot studies (Blue mouse testicles from eating GMO soy: really? No mouse fries for me!) and debunks 4 other myths about biotech crops.
Steve Chapman, "Obama is Not Nixon": Thumbs DOWN!
I think part of the reason this essay hits the wrong chord with me is because I just listened to MTP moderator David Gregory on Sunday talk soup.where Gregory attempted to go back nearly 26 years in his pathetic attempts of gotcha journalism:
(Videotape; C-SPAN, June 11, 1987)McConnell may be the most skillful politician I've ever seen. Gregory is trying to pull a bait-and-switch here, to argue that the IRS was simply doing its job in giving conservative groups extra scrutiny. He's implicitly arguing that McConnell is being hypocritical. There are a couple of problems here:: first, there is the unconstitutional double standard of scrutiny being applied; second, there's the chilling, unconstitutional effect on (anonymous) free speech. Note the attempts to restrict political speech (e.g. Pelosi's attempt to repeal Citizens United) are almost always from the left wing.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501(c)(3) and (4) organizations-- charitable organizations can engage in. They’re being abused not just by people on the right but most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.
(End videotape)
GREGORY: So that is-- that was a problem then and some are arguing it’s-- it’s a problem now as well. Is there-- out of all of this, do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?
SEN. MCCONNELL: It’s not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What-- what we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There’s an effort here also to make sure that you can get their donor list or their membership list. I was wrong 25 years ago, I’ve been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their First Amendment Rights. And that’s what it is-- is at the heart of this and that’s what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax-exempt status.
Gregory's performance was abysmal as usual; he's essentially demanding that the GOP prove a vast left conspiracy, top down from the White House. First, this is not a partisan issue; it's a justice issue, and the fox is in charge of the hen house. Second, the salient issue is management, and a "look the other way" tolerance of wrongdoing is merely a softer version of tyranny. My understanding is the inspector investigations were not based on internal sources but complaints from those receiving unfair scrutiny. When you don't enforce policy, you're de facto making policy. McConnell makes a subtle related point, noting that Alabama had done a similar thing that the IRS operatives were doing in demanding donor lists from the NAACP, rightly ruled unconstitutional back in 1958. No doubt the Dems would love to make donor lists standard operating procedure; why didn't they? Certainly they knew what SCOTUS ruled. So why is it any more legal if they ask under scrutiny? You think constitutional law lecturer Barack Obama might know about the 1958 decision? Do I think that Barack Obama gets briefed on IRS interrogations of Tea Party groups? Not as standard operating procedure; he was probably busy playing another round of golf. But he does have ultimate responsibility that his Administration follows the law; this is a guy whom promised transparency and the highest ethics in his Administration. And amateurs like David Gregory are playing games, more interested in parroting Administration talking points than in engaging in serious news journalism.
Now as for the Chapman piece: let us recognize that late FBI director Hoover reportedly had files on many political figures and other prominent celebrities (e.g., Martin Luther King), including extramarital affairs. This was unconstitutional, of course, and allowed him to continue to blackmail politicians and subvert the democratic process. Recall the spoils system originated under the Jackson Democrats and it took nearly 3 generations before we saw the precursor to today's civil service system, with a limited number of political patronage appointments
Of course, Nixon had issues, some of which I attribute to dubious election results in Illinois and Texas, possibly costing Nixon the 1960 election. I was too young to vote in either Nixon election, but I was not a Nixon fan. It was Nixon's own hubris that led to his undoing; he's the one whom had everything taped for posterity. McGovern never had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Nixon; why the break-in? And he certainly didn't help his case with the ill-advised "I am not a crook" speech or firing the special prosecutor. The fact he had enemies lists wasn't good, and he clearly thought he was above the law. Nixon lacked Obama's charisma and unflappable personality.
Here is what the 44th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity." Obama said this as he announced the dismissal of the acting commissioner for failing to prevent political abuse.
Here is what the 37th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? ... We have all this power and we aren't using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?"Expletive deleted. Chapman's comparison--based on incomparable scandals--is intellectually shallow. There never would have been an impeachment of Nixon on the IRS charge; the Democrats were trying to throw the book at Nixon hoping something would stick. But other Presidents from FDR through LBJ attempted to use the IRS (e.g., under JFK, the John Birch Society reportedly came under scrutiny).
But Chapman is comparing the political spin of the Obama Administration caught with its hand in the cookie jar--of course, Obama is going to throw his IRS commissioner under the bus--he's in damage control mode. Do you think Nixon would have thrown or did throw his minions under the bus? Of course
In contrast, Chapman is quoting Nixon--is this from a public speech? No, it's from a secret tape. Do we have secret tapes of Obama since the scandal surfaced, MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION? Not to my knowledge. In fact, from the quote, we can assume that Nixon was (rightly) getting pushback on his attempts to use the IRS...
Why is this a particularly potent issue? Because the IRS is expanding to enforce ObamaCare. There are also enormous stores of personal data potential vulnerable to abuse by "rogue personnel":
The IRS's mainframe computer in Martinsburg, W.Va., is among the world’s most powerful. As of October 2010, the Internal Revenue Service had the capability to sift through emailing patterns associated with millions of individual Internet addresses.
Sources tell Fox News the IRS continues to collect tax data, but they also are now acquiring huge volumes of personal information on taxpayers’ digital activities, from eBay auctions, Facebook posts, and, for the first time ever, credit card and e-payment transaction records.Got that, Chapman? This isn't your grandfather's IRS. More to the point, there are different types of tyranny. Chapman is only interested in the visible tip of the tyranny iceberg. I'm more interested in the tyranny beneath the surface. Obama is condoning a culture of tyranny of thousands of unaccountable little Nixon's running their little bureaucratic fiefdoms. Obama does what he always does--makes some token concessions but only when his fingers have been caught in the cookie drive.
Nixon did some very bad things which were never on the table for impeachment, e.g., ditching Bretton-Woods, unleashing unfettered fiat currency madness and high inflation over the following decade because he couldn't hold down spending. Obama isn't as self-destructive, but a morally corrupt, hazardous culture under his "leadership" is far more insidious. I think Obama is grossly incompetent; that's far more dangerous than a universally despised, petty, failed leader whom lost the one thing he ever really wanted--a lasting legacy.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesty of Henry Payne and Townhall |
Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "57 Channels and Nothing On"
