Friday, December 03, 2010
RedState Morning Briefing For December 3, 2010
1. Who Made Them God?
2. Another punch to the gut of Keynesian economic “stimulus”
3. No compromise.
4. Stopping START. Part II
5. Bowles-Simpson is a Massive Tax Hike
6. Responding to the Two-Inch Crowd on Assange
———————————————————
1. Who Made Them God?
To listen to the news coverage today, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles have become deities. No doubt Barack Obama will be jealous.
The coverage of this Deficit Commission plan is ludicrous. The reporters breathlessly reporting on it are overwrought in ecstasy, but few of them actually understand what they are talking about.
It’s just . . . it’s just . . . bipartisan.
Bend over America. The Bipartisan Ship is coming. Good Lord. Our only moderate saving grace is that the Commission does not have the votes to make the report “official.”
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Another punch to the gut of Keynesian economic “stimulus”
I’m no economist, nor do I play one on TV. However, the argument about Keynesian vs. supply-side economic stimulus has fascinated me since the Good Ship Obama sailed in January. To free-marketeers and small-government adherents like myself, it seems intuitively obvious that reducing the taxes be handed over the government, allowing Americans to keep more of their own money, and reducing the amount that DC bureaucrats have to waste would be far more likely to stimulate the economy than growing an already-bloated government bureaucracy and incurring more unnecessary spending.
And…according to some new research data, we would be right.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. No compromise.
I have grown weary of hearing the calls for bi-partisanship. The calls for “reaching across the aisle” and “bucking your party.” And yes, I’m even tired of that sacred word that hushes the most stubborn of partisans: Compromise. Compromise in terms of leadership or lack thereof. Compromise with ulterior motives and double-speak. Compromise that hurts our country, indeed our world.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Stopping START. Part II
There are two articles in the Washington Post which should be read by anyone with an interest in this subject. The first is by Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell in defense of the treaty. The second is a deconstruction of their arguments by George Will.
In my view it is Will who carries the day. Will points out that the enthusiasm for this treaty is driven by two closely related factors. Obama needs a success in order to remain relevant and Russian needs to feel important. START II arrives at this unique nexus of neediness tailor made to suit both parties. In counterpoint to the treaty defenders, this treaty is not necessary in order to reduce nuclear weapons.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Bowles-Simpson is a Massive Tax Hike
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission, released a revised proposal that will be voted on later today. It already does not have the votes to pass.
Bowles and Simpson have undoubtedly worked hard at a thankless chore these last few months. They have resisted the temptation to demonize all spending cuts and focus exclusively on raising taxes. They have put forward many reasonable individual reforms that warrant consideration. But overall the Bowles-Simpson package is what this commission was designed to produce–a massive tax hike that will keep the federal government at a size and scope that is historically high for this country.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
6. Responding to the Two-Inch Crowd on Assange
Apparently some folks were upset by my suggestion yesterday that it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if Julian Assange were to find a small caliber bullet in his cranial cavity. I say “apparently” because, if this post from Mediaite is any indication, it’s really hard to tell when these people are actually exercised about something. I had always wondered what Rush meant when he referred to “the two-inch crowd”; now I know.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment