GONE HUNTING

That’s all for now. My Dad and I are going to hunt some pheasant up north for a few days, and then I’m heading back to California for a few days.

Thanks to everyone who visits my site! You don’t know how much I appreciate it!

Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!

posted by David 11:18 AM

. . .

GETTING ROBBED

Well, Rob Borsellino is having his day. Take a look at some of the links over at Tusk and Talon, Iowa Libertarian, and Cedar Pundit for more.

Meanwhile, Rob Borsellino tries to play courageous left-wing hero by showing some of the abusive email he received from those on the right. It’s exactly what you’d expect from Rob: showing only those who are over-the-top and thereby portraying the political right as a bunch of angry nuts; while at the same time ignoring the more substantive criticism he surely received (as evidenced on the Register letters page).

My favorite part of the column is:

I close those [emails] down, two more pop up:

My personal response to you sir, being a New Yorker who saw the 2 planes hit the twin towers no more than 15 blocks away from me on 9/11, is to HELL with you and all zombies of your stripe!!!!!!!!!!!!! . . . What have you ever done to defend this country other than sit behind a typewriter while real men protected you.

Typewriter? Real men? I'm thinking that guy must be a vet from an earlier time. Maybe the Spanish-American war.

I could go into an extended criticism of this, but it pretty much speaks for itself. What an arrogant fool!

Last thing: a reader of mine says Borsellino was interviewed by Michael Medved on Medved’s radio show. The reader said Borsellino came off as a child, and I see no reason to doubt him, do you? He also told me that of the Democratic candidates, Borsellino preferred Al Sharpton. I could comment on that too, but it also pretty much speaks for itself.

posted by David 11:10 AM

. . .

MORE MORAL VAPIDITY

The Des Moines Register can’t even praise the capture of Saddam Hussein without descending into trendy leftism. Case in point:

This is the moment to internationalize the effort - to draw in the United Nations to oversee creation of a new Iraqi government and reconstruction. By internationalizing the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States can affirm what President Bush has often said but few in the Middle East believe - that America has no imperialistic designs on Iraq and intends to withdraw as soon as possible.

“Internationalize.” Guess the Register got its DNC talking points memo. No one can accuse the Register of being history buffs. Apparently they think that the U.N. really wants to be in Iraq, if only that impudent little Mr. Bush would get off his high horse and ask them nicely. How quickly they forget that the U.N. was in Iraq, and tucked tail and ran when the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was bombed. Kofi Annan has shown no interest in sending the U.N. back in. For more on this matter, go here.

The effort already is internationalized, with 60 countries participating in Iraq. Just because France and Germany are too big of Euro-Weenie-Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys to participate, doesn’t mean the effort isn’t international. Why do I feel like I’m beating a dead horse?

Now , check out this little gem:

In addition to opening a door of opportunity to get more help from the international community, the capture should also be the occasion for reaching out to the insurgents in Iraq. Americans are dying in what amounts to a civil war between those who accept the American presence and those who don't.

Got that wonderful bit of whitewashing? The brutes that are killing our boys are “those who don’t” accept America’s presence in Iraq. This is sickening on three levels. First, it makes the thugs that worked for Saddam’s tyranny and are killing our soldiers to regain their positions of privilege seem not as bad as they really are. Second, it portrays them as not a whole lot worse than those Iraqis who are trying to go on with there daily life. Finally, it implies it’s America’s fault: if the U.S. wasn’t really in Iraq, then there would be no problem.

Yes, typical moral vapidity. Par for the course for the Register.

posted by David 12:22 PM

. . .

A MAJOR TRAGEDY…

…education in Iowa has to do more with less! Earlier this week the Register ran its bi-monthly editorial trying to convince us that making cuts in state government is leading us to disaster:

Schools have been eliminating positions: principals, teachers, teacher associates and custodians. Class sizes are increasing, while staff development is decreasing. Supplies have been slashed and textbook and library purchases delayed - over and over.

On its face that does look bad. But the question that the register never asks is, “How many of those positions are necessary ones, and how much of it is trimming fat?” Unless you believe that there is no waste in education, one can certainly make a reasonable case that we can stand some cuts.

Also it’s a little difficult to follow the Register’s reasoning is the following passage. (Of course, when is it ever easy to follow the Register’s reasoning?):

At a press conference Tuesday at the Iowa Capitol, they asked legislators for help. They cited a survey they conducted finding 67 percent of Iowa voters favor a tax increase to adequately support education. The groups want $200 million more in school aid next school year, which is not unreasonable in light of the underfunding that's gone on.

* In 2001-02, the state took back $77.5 million in school aid mid-year.

* In 2002-03, new school-aid dollars totaled $59 million, but because schools never got back all $77.5 million, they started out that year with less money than 2001-02.

*This school year, schools got $33 million in new school aid, but the state took back $44 million mid-year.

Now let’s see here. How much has state education funding been cut in the last three years.? Well, if you do the math (-77.5+59+33-44), the total cut amounts to 29.5 million. A $200 million increase is almost seven times larger than the cut! Perhaps it depends on what your definition of “not unreasonable” is.

It is also helpful to know that state foundation aid rose in the three years prior to 2001 by $189 million. Where did I get that number? By doing the math with the numbers provided by….drum roll please…the Des Moines Register!

One last thing: This would all be more convincing if Iowa needed to educate more students. But we don’t. In the last ten years K-12 enrollment has dropped -1.7%, while state foundation aid has risen 15% above inflation. In other words, we’ve been spending more money to educate fewer students.

In short, the Register doesn’t have a very compelling case. Do they ever?

posted by David 11:06 AM

. . .

AND FISKING THE NATION

Michael Totten does a nice takedown of an article in the Nation. I’m inclined to comment that it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but then I took on Borsellino, so…

posted by David 11:20 AM

. . .

FISKING BORSELLINO

My new column in the American Spectator.

posted by David 2:02 AM

. . .

RADIO APPEARANCES

Two radio appearances today. I'll be on KWKY 1150 AM with Maxine Sieleman at 8am.

At 9am I'll be on with Jan Mickelson on WHO radio, 1040 AM.

posted by David 7:14 AM

. . .

A GOOD WEEK

You know it’s going to be a good week when both Royce and Jeff fisk you-know-who.

posted by David 7:13 AM

. . .

PATHETIC CYNICISM

You know, it is interesting when adults unburden their psyches onto the editorial pages of a newspaper—pitiful, but interesting.

Rob Borsellino’s recent column is a great case in point. The title is only half accurate: “At Least One Cynic Remains Amid Those Cheering the Capture.” His column is definitely that of a cynic. But Rod shouldn’t worry: there are plenty of fellow cynics over at Democratic Underground, MoveOn.org, Counterspin Central, and a whole host of other lefty websites that I would direct you toward if I was a sadist.

Anyway, let’s begin with this excursion into the pathetic:

I hung up, turned on the TV, and the cynicism kicked in.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cynicism “kicked in,” given that Borsellino’s cynicism dial, at least as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, is always ratcheted up all the way to ten. Or does it “go to eleven!”?

Can we believe them when they say it's Saddam Hussein, or did they dress up one of his look-alikes?

Can we believe that he wrote this drivel?

Did they really catch him now or were they holding him until Sunday morning so the Bush team could do the talk-show circuit?

Did the Register really feel no embarrassment when it published this tripe?

Is this just one big stunt to raise Bush's poll numbers?

Will these juvenile questions ever end?

It's gotten to that point with me. I've been burned a few times and now I just don't believe these guys. It's not a particularly good feeling, but I know I'm not alone. I've talked to a lot of people who feel the same way.

I thought that person A could only get “burned” when he believes person B and then person B screws him? So, given that Borsellino never believed the Bush Administration to begin with, how could he get “burned”? Oh damn it! I fell into the trap of actually trying to make sense of this column.

Back in the summer, a friend admitted that she was actually taking comfort from the terrible news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. She'd hear about explosions, ambushes, the killing of U.N. officials, pro-American Iraqis, innocent children, and she was saddened by the deaths. But ultimately she thought it was a good thing. She'd thought that enough bloodshed and disaster would create a movement in this country, a demand to get our people home and save some lives. Maybe enough death would wake folks up to the fact that we have no business running around the globe killing people.

So, Borsellino has friends who are comforted when things go badly for the U.S. in Iraq. And to think that his wife complains that she and others who oppose the war are called unpatriotic!

This is so sick on so many different levels. First, there is the typical moral cluelessness. The U.S. is “running around the globe killing people,” as though what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan is indistinguishable from what Saddam did to Iraqis, or what Osama bin Laden did to us on 9/11. Apparently in this demented excuse for thinking, using violence to liberate people from brutal, sadistic tyrants and to prevent future acts of terrorism is no different than the violence used to perpetuate terrorism. I could go on and on about this, but I won’t since I’ve discussed it many times before. The fact that I have to keep going back to it shows that some members of our society will never be relieved of their foolishness.

Second, note Borsellino’s cynicism by omission. That is, he mentions U.N. Officials and pro-American Iraqis, but not American soldiers. He seems to think that Americans won’t care too much about the deaths of non-Americans, but if he were to mention that his friend (probably) took comfort in the death of our boys in uniform, and he’d probably be bounced off the Register staff.

She felt terrible. As an American - someone who genuinely loves this country - she was horrified at her own reaction, embarrassed.

Well, at least she has a few redeeming qualities

And she's not alone, but it's not the kind of thing people feel comfortable discussing.

So how do you get at the truth on something like this?.

How about by calling a spade a spade? It’s a bunch of unpatriotic, self-indulgent, pea-brained schlock that the Register should be ashamed to have printed.

Borsellino then went around to the various offices of the candidates for the Democratic nomination, half expecting them to tell him that they thought the capture was terrible because it would help Bush’s reelection chances. Thankfully, Borsellino was disappointed.

The one redeeming part of the column came when Borsellino interviewed Bill Burton, spokesman for the Gephardt campaign. I met Burton when I covered the Gephardt campaign recently, and I got the sense that he is a stand-up guy. He didn’t disappoint:

Said Burton: "This is a great thing. It makes the world a safer place and it makes the U.S. stronger."

Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Borsellino ended with the smartest line of his column:

I'm still not there.

No, and you never will be.

posted by David 7:12 AM

. . .

IF I DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY…

…I’d write editorials for the Des Moines Register. That’s the best way to describe the Register editorialists’ recent attempt to scare everyone into thinking privatizing Social Security will mean grandma will be kicked out into the street, won’t get her medicine, have to eat Alpo, blah, blah, blah.

So, let’s begin shall we:

A myth repeated loudly enough and often enough can become so deeply rooted in the public conscience that it is widely accepted as truth.

And the Register should definitely know about spreading myths. That’s what its editorial page excels at.

Case in point is the furious effort by some groups to undermine confidence in Social Security. They have succeeded in sowing doubt.

One reason they have succeeded is that the annual report of the Social Security Trustees says that Social Security is in trouble. Here’s the report. On page eight, it reads:

Under the intermediate assumptions, the OASDI cost rate is projected to decline slightly and then remain flat for the next several years. It then begins to increase rapidly and first exceeds the income rate in 2018, producing cash-flow deficits thereafter.

In other words, the Social Security system starts paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes by about 2018. Sounds to me like those claiming the system is heading for a crisis are correct.

The privatizers ran and hid when the bear market rained on their parade. But if the current market upswing is for real, they'll be back. At least until it rains again.

No, they didn’t run and hide. The Register editorialists might take a look at what David C. John at Heritage wrote, or what Matt Moore at NCPA wrote, or what I wrote for PII. Of course, that would require a willingness to consider another point of view.

Social Security, the privatization pols say, is broke. It won't be there for future retirees. There's no money in the trust fund. It has all been spent. All workers will have to show for their contributions is a bunch of IOUs.

Yep. That’s pretty much what they say. And they are right:

Of course the money has been spent, to cover current federal expenses. If instead it were "saved" in a vault or buried in the Treasury's back yard, it wouldn't draw interest, and the Social Security tax would have to be raised. And of course the workers have IOUs. They're from the U.S. Treasury, the safest investment in the world.

Okay, now follow along closely here, or you’ll miss how the Register is pulling a fast one. The Register wants you to think that there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund by claiming that the I.O.Us are actually Treasury bonds. What they’re not telling you is those I.O.U.s are only claims on future tax revenue. That means that when the Social Security Trust Fund redeems those I.O.U.s to pay for benefits, the federal government will have to come up with the tax revenue to pay off those I.O.U.s. What the Register doesn’t address—probably because it is trying to pull a fast one—is that to pay off the I.O.U.s means either more borrowing or raising taxes.

And one other thing about that passage: no one on our side is arguing that Treasury bonds are not the “safest” investment. What we are arguing is that the I.O.U.s are a liability for future taxpayers.

If Social Security were privatized, the workers would still have nothing but IOUs - except they'd be from corporations, and we all know how trustworthy corporations have been lately in handling other people's money.

Spare me the workers-of-the-world-unite-corporations-are-shafting-the-little-guy garbage! The fact of the matter is the vast majority of corporations are trustworthy; the companies like Enron are a small minority. Furthermore, a stock is not an I.O.U.. A stock represents a share in a company. Unlike a bond, a company is not obligated to pay you anything. A stock’s value derives from the value of the company. Perhaps those who disparage Social Security privatization should know the difference between a stock and bond before they enthrall us with their wisdom.

The Social Security trust fund is alive and well and has built up a whopping $1.3 trillion reserve.

No, it’s a $1.3 trillion liability. The money to pay off the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund has to come from somewhere. It won’t come from a Social Security fairy. Unless the system is reformed, it will likely come from the hide of Joe Taxpayer.

The size of the fund is expected to peak and turn downhill in 2017. The fund will be exhausted in 2041. After that, revenues will pay just 75 percent of obligations - unless the formula is adjusted. And it will be. After all, the tax base and tax rate have already been changed 59 times over the course of Social Security history, and there are other options besides messing with the tax.

At first glance, that paragraph doesn’t make sense. How can you adjust the formula so that the system fulfills it’s obligations without raising taxes? Well, you might try means-testing Social Security, so that those seniors with more retirement income get less in Social Security benefits. Is that what the Register is in favor of? Perhaps they should be a bit more forthcoming and tell us exactly what they propose as a remedy, since they aren’t, apparently, in favor of tax increases.

One other thing: the dates are 2018 and 2042. Minor details, perhaps, but those who wish to enthrall us with their wisdom about Social Security reform should also have their facts up to date.

We are, indeed, at the mercy of Congress. But Congress is at the mercy of the public - and we outnumber them half a million to one. They need us far more than we need them. Of all the federal financial obligations, the Social Security benefits owed to their constituents is the one they absolutely dare not renege on. So stop worrying that Social Security might collapse.

Okay, then let’s start worrying about how Congress will meet those financial obligations. Tax increases, benefit cuts, huge borrowing? Please, tell us, oh wise-and-all-knowing Register editorialists, which of those options do you prefer?

But do worry that you might not be saving enough for retirement. Social Security, after all, was never intended to be the sole source of retirement income. It supplements two other sources - personal savings and pensions.

Whoa! Hang on a minute! Personal savings and pensions are usually invested in those “I.O.U.s” from corporations. If it is good to have personal savings and pensions that are invested in those things, why isn’t it okay to have a private Social Security accounts that are invested in those same things?

With current trends in employment practices and the economy, those two other legs of the retirement stool may be more wobbly than Social Security.

Wait, now I’m being told that personal savings and pensions aren’t reliable?! I’m getting very dizzy. I’m not sure what trends the Register is talking about: the one where more and more employers are offering 401(k)s and IRAs? Oh, you mean recent trends, like 8.2% growth in the economy in the 3rd Quarter, or a dropping unemployment rate.

Perhaps they mean the trend that they fantasize about, that the economy will soon tank and Bush won’t be reelected. That’s almost as solid as their fantasy about the Social Security Trust Fund.

MORE: Go see Jeff’s post on this a little while back at Tusk and Talon.

posted by David 7:45 AM

. . .