Friday, May 02, 2003
THE ONE TIME…
…that I wish Fidel Castro’s paranoid ravings were true:
Fidel Castro accused the United States of wanting to attack Cuba
. . .
2004 AND 1992
More on this topic in the letters page at the American Prowler and over at DailyPundit. The consensus seems to be that I overlooked the Perot and Nader factors. Also, W. James Antle has more at the Prowler.
. . .
Thursday, May 01, 2003
WILL 2004 BE LIKE 1992?
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
REGISTER = HYPOCRITES
About three weeks ago the Des Moines Register ran this editorial urging an increase in the cigarette tax to pay for the economic development fund. In response I wrote:
The grants from this economic development fund will go to people who are already well off. It is supposed to create a lot of jobs for people with a college degree. Yet the funds will come from a cigarette tax. And which socioeconomic class comprises the vast majority of smokers? Keep that in mind the next time the Register gripes about “tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.”
In its effort to derail income-tax reform in the Iowa Legislature, the Register editorialists write:
Senate leaders can't even get enough members of their own party to pass their proposed income-tax changes. The details of the plan are sketchy, but the outline is to shrink Iowa's nine-bracket system to three rates, get rid of most deductions and cut taxes by $310 million annually. Then they'd "temporarily" raise the sales tax - which would hit low-income Iowans proportionately the hardest - to offset the reduction in revenue.
Now they’re concerned about taxing the poor. When it is done in order to cut income taxes, it’s a bad idea. But when it is done to fund economic development schemes….um….well….that’s different!
. . .
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
WHAT ABOUT BOB?
Over at Zonitics, Ed Boyd notes the very detail-oriented Bob Graham can’t seem to keep straight his opponents’ positions on tax cuts.
. . .
DON’T JUST DO SOMETHING, STAND THERE!
State Senate Republicans in Des Moines made a last ditch effort to save the economic development fund. It looks like the fund is going down in flames. But just like the monster in a bad horror flick:
"If we don't get the cooperation we need from both Democrats and (House) Republicans this week, then we are prepared to come back in a special session and ask for their cooperation again," said Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson of Dows.
Okay, on the count of 3: 1, 2, 3 GROOOOOOOOOOAAAANNN…
Unfortunately, the usually savvy David Yepsen seconds the emotion:
It's the last official week of the 2003 session of the Iowa Legislature, and lots of important bills hang in the balance. Each will improve Iowa's economy and each needs to be passed - now.
If lawmakers don't approve them, Gov. Tom Vilsack should call lawmakers back for a special session in June to complete this work.
The economic development fund will not improve Iowa’s economy. It will increase the states’ debt burden and, in turn, increase the tax burden on Iowans. Yes, the Iowa Legislature may adjourn without getting much done aside from the budget. But sometimes getting nothing done is a good thing, especially if it means you aren’t making things worse.
. . .
YOU DON'T SAY!
Larry Eustachy: Drinking Played Role In Behavior
. . .
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
IS KRUGMAN THE NOAM CHOMSKY OF ECONOMICS?
Based on his latest column, it sure seems like he’s headed in the direction of the famed MIT linguistics professor.
Like Chomsky, Krugman sets out by distorting the facts:
Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.
Here is Bush’s speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, when he first began to make the case. The following remarks came before he talked about Iraq’s nuclear program:
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
Looks like Bush considered chemical and biological weapons to be a major justification for invading Iraq. I wonder, how hard would it have been for Krugman to visit the Whitehouse’s website?
Next, Krugman suggests that the media is manufacturing consent by parroting the Administration line:
One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.
Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.
Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.
Has Krugman never heard of Scott Ritter? Last fall he was all over the cable networks saying that the weapons inspectors had rid Iraq of its WMDs. If the major media was marching in lockstep to the Bush Administration, why did it permit Ritter to espouse his views?
Furthermore, if the media is so compliant, why has it been running so many stories in the last week asking where the WMDs are? Here’s CNN, CBS, FoxNews, ABC, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and even MSNBC. I suspect that if most Americans are paying even half attention to the news, they know that WMDs have not yet been found.
The final paragraph in Krugman’s column suggests that he really has purchased a one-way ticket to Chomsky la-la land:
Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?
Well, actually, Professor Krugman, I’ll let you in on a little secret since I’m a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and you’re not. The Nocturnal Council met last month, and has added the 28th Amendment to the Constitution which reads: “Henceforth, George W. Bush shall be monarch of these United States. All legislative, executive, and judicial powers shall be vested in his office. His decree shall be law. All other portions of this Constitution are hereby repealed.” Just thought you’d like to know.
UPDATE: For more, here is Matthew Hoy, Don Luskin, and Random Jottings.
. . .
OH JOY! HEALTH CARE INSTEAD OF TAX CUTS!
The Des Moines Register op-ed page loved the Gephardt proposal to rescind the Bush tax cut in favor of health-care spending. Yes, I know, you’re shocked.
It was bold. It was daring. Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt has proposed spending hundreds of billions of dollars to provide health insurance to all Americans. Not only was his proposal sweeping and expensive, but he offered it as a stark alternative to the Bush administration's tax cuts.
According to Gephardt, those tax cuts could pay for the medical care of Americans.
Pitting health care against tax cuts is smart policy. Gephardt will find out if it's smart politics. He is asking the American people: Tax cuts for the rich or medical care for your neighbors?
Actually, it’s tax cuts for all taxpayers, not just the wealthy. But why let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of using class-warfare rhetoric?
Furthermore, it’s not smart policy. Rescinding the tax cut will have a dampening effect of economic growth as entrepreneurs cut back on investing when they realize that the after-tax return on such investing will be smaller. Gephardt will find out that it’s not smart politics. When Americans realize they will pay more in taxes to expand Medicare and Medicaid, they’ll turn on it so fast it will make Hillary Clinton’s head spin.
Gephardt's plan would include increasing the insurance costs an employer can deduct and it would provide incentives to insure part-time employees. He said when employers save on health-care costs, there will be more money to spend on wages and capital investment. Gephardt considers his plan "an economic stimulus more powerful than any this country has ever seen."
Ha! Expanding third-party payer insurance via traditional health-care plans and expansions of Medicare and Medicaid will only drive health-care costs up even further, increasing the burden on employers. So much for all that extra capital to spend on wages and investment. But Gephardt isn’t the only one who needs to brush up on his economics:
A case can be made that improving the health-care system would stimulate the economy more than tax cuts would.
And I suspect it would go something like this: When workers without health-care get sick, they have fewer options for treatment. Thus, they stay sick longer, hurting the bottom line of the businesses they work for. Furthermore, putting more money into the health-care profession, as the Gephardt plan would do, puts resources into a high-growth, high-wage industry.
Do I read the Des Moines Register a lot, or what?
. . .
AND THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO BUY AS MUCH BEER, EITHER
It is the hallmark of a carping liberal editorial page that every increase in the cost of something (except when it is the cost to businesses or taxpayers) will mean the end of society as we know it:
A college degree is no longer a luxury. At least a two-year degree is a necessity. It's necessary so Iowans can earn living wages. It's necessary if this state wants an educated population. It's necessary if Iowa is going to be a great place to live with opportunities for growth and development.
That degree won't be accessible if current tuition increases continue.
The increase in question?
For all those Iowans already struggling to pay college tuition, the Iowa Legislature is about to issue another blow to your pocketbook. If proposed cuts of $17.9 million to universities are passed, an Iowa student could end up paying another $250 a year to attend a public university in this state.
WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone please tell the editorialists at the Register that the taxpayers already pick up two-thirds of the cost of tuition at Iowa’s public universities. Letting students pay for more of their own education isn’t going to kill them.
. . .
Monday, April 28, 2003
WHY CYCLONES ARE SUPERIOR TO HAWKEYES
I have seen the light. After years of being a University of Iowa Hawkeye’s fan, I now know that I have been rooting for a bunch of pikers. Yes, I admit the Iowa State Cyclones are better.
They are better because their men’s basketball coach, Larry Eustachy, is much cooler than any Hawkeye coach.
Eustachy is a PARTY ANIMAL! He teaches his players how to drain baskets and drain beer cans:
Even more impressive, Eustachy is quite the ladies’ man:
Here Larry Lovebird goes smoochy, smoochy:
What a stud! Do I need more reason to be a Cyclone fan?
. . .
|
. . .
|
