Friend Kristof speaketh my mind

This is such a great article that I want to post the whole thing here, something i rarely do:

December 25, 2010

The Big (Military) Taboo
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

We face wrenching budget cutting in the years ahead, but there’s one huge area of government spending that Democrats and Republicans alike have so far treated as sacrosanct. It’s the military/security world, and it’s time to bust that taboo. A few facts:

• The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.
• The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?
• The intelligence community is so vast that more people have “top secret” clearance than live in Washington, D.C.
• The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined.

This is the one area where elections scarcely matter. President Obama, a Democrat who symbolized new directions, requested about 6 percent more for the military this year than at the peak of the Bush administration.

“Republicans think banging the war drums wins them votes, and Democrats think if they don’t chime in, they’ll lose votes,” said Andrew Bacevich, an ex-military officer who now is a historian at Boston University. He is author of a thoughtful recent book, “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War.”

The costs of excessive reliance on military force are not just financial, of course, as Professor Bacevich knows well. His son, Andrew Jr., an Army first lieutenant, was killed in Iraq in 2007.

Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.

What’s more, if you’re carrying an armload of hammers, every problem looks like a nail. The truth is that military power often isn’t very effective at solving modern problems, like a nuclear North Korea or an Iran that is on the nuclear path. Indeed, in an age of nationalism, our military force is often counterproductive.

After the first gulf war, the United States retained bases in Saudi Arabia on the assumption that they would enhance American security. Instead, they appear to have provoked fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden into attacking the U.S. In other words, hugely expensive bases undermined American security (and we later closed them anyway). Wouldn’t our money have been better spent helping American kids get a college education?

Paradoxically, it’s often people with experience in the military who lead the way in warning against overinvestment in arms. It was President Dwight Eisenhower who gave the strongest warning: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” And in the Obama administration, it is Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has argued that military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny; it is Secretary Gates who has argued most eloquently for more investment in diplomacy and development aid.

American troops in Afghanistan are among the strongest advocates of investing more in schools there because they see firsthand that education fights extremism far more effectively than bombs. And here’s the trade-off: For the cost of one American soldier in Afghanistan for one year, you could build about 20 schools.

There are a few signs of hope in the air. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposes cutting money for armaments, along with other spending. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled a signature project, the quadrennial diplomacy and development review, which calls for more emphasis on aid and diplomacy in foreign policy.

“Leading through civilian power saves lives and money,” Mrs. Clinton noted, and she’s exactly right. The review is a great document, but we’ll see if it can be implemented — especially because House Republicans are proposing cuts in the State Department budget.

They should remind themselves that in the 21st century, our government can protect its citizens in many ways: financing research against disease, providing early childhood programs that reduce crime later, boosting support for community colleges, investing in diplomacy that prevents costly wars.

As we cut budgets, let’s remember that these steps would, on balance, do far more for the security of Americans than a military base in Germany.

shocking they would disappoint us like this

From Washinton Monthly, with comments in boldface following from today's Dailykos.com:

When House Republican leaders unveiled their Pledge to America in September, it included a pretty striking promise to voters -- if elected, the GOP majority would "roll back government spending" by "at least $100 billion in the first year alone." [...]



Monday, Republicans started slowly backing away from their $100 billion commitment. Yesterday, the pledge was effectively thrown out the window.


Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.


Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.


Oh, I see. Republican pledges are "hypothetical" promises. The Pledge to America must have included asterisks and disclaimers in font so small, the country missed the caveats.


Of course another thing the country missed was the traditional media challenging the GOP to identify specific spending cuts rather than just providing them with a platform to peddle their collection of talking points.

Big on News Items today

News Item: Michele Bachmann Reportedly Weighing 2012 Presidential RunCan you imagine the ratings they'd get for Presidential Debates involving her and Sarah Palin? They should put it on pay-per-view - I'd pay! Or make it a game show where the viewers have to try to keep a straight face for as long as possible! Where can I send a donation to help pay for her filing fees?

I'm going to make you learn this...so I can understand how it works

From today's Huffington Post:

"Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) seems to be a big fan of constitutional history, even if his own legislative history hasn't always lived up to that document.But an appearance on "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell may have shown that such dedication was lacking in the past. On Tuesday, Goodlatte came on the program to discuss his symbolic reading, and also played up the fact that the "we have, as a part of our new rules of the House, a requirement that all bills introduced in the Congress state the basis in the Constitution -- the section of the Constitution -- upon which that introducer of the bill relies in introducing it."
O'Donnell asked Goodlatte for the current Supreme Court justice who "most reflects" his own reading of the Constitution. After Goodlatte heaped praise on Antonin Scalia and indicated that legislation should stick within the framework of the Constitution, O'Donnell pointed out that Scalia had been part of a 7-2 majority that rulled Goodlatte's own internet censorship bill unconstitutional.

The congressman told O'Donnell that he has not looked into the constitutionality of the minimum wage, despite voting to increase it.


The host pressed, "You voted for an increase in something that you don't even know has constitutional authority to exist?"
"That's correct," Goodlatte admitted."

Other than those things, we're just thrilled though

When the Obama insiders seem confused as to why we on the Left are so upset with him, maybe no example is easier to show why than this simple display of, well, pussy-ness:

"The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday."

Hard to find many examples where the expression "Grow a pair, willya?!" is more appropriate, unless maybe it was tax cuts for the rich...or a public option...or carbon taxes...or getting the hell out of Afghanistan...or...

And that's the way it's going to be from now on - no exceptions! Well, except this one time.

News Item from the NYT today:

Representative John A. Boehner, who on Wednesday will be sworn in as the new speaker, has made serious alterations in the rules. Members will vote on Wednesday on changes that ostensibly increase the transparency of lawmaking, but also consolidate Republican power over the budget process.



Mr. Boehner seeks to do away with large omnibus spending bills, preferring to break them into smaller bills, and to allow for more amendments on bills generally, and more extensive debate.


Members offering bills for new programs will have to explain how they will pay for them, not by raising new revenues but by finding other ways to cut costs. Each bill introduced will also have to cite the specific constitutional authority for its contents.


For the first time under the House rules, all bills will be required to be placed online. Committees will post their rules and their votes, as well as information about testifying witnesses in an effort to make public any conflicts of interest.


In an unusual grab of budgetary power, the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee will be able to unilaterally set limits for categories of domestic spending until a budget resolution is passed this spring, as a budget enforcement measure.

Some of Mr. Boehner’s more notable proposals concern the transparency and speed with which bills are going to be considered. The Republicans are committed to making all legislation available to lawmakers, and the public, at least three days before a House vote; in large part, this is a response to the late-night revisions made to the energy bill, among others, that was decried by Republicans.



Before bills are marked up — a sacred practice that allows lawmakers to change the content of bills — three days’ notice must be given, also to stave off dark-of-night revisions.


Requiring bills to be placed online is “very, very unusual and groundbreaking,” said Muftiah McCartin, a former staff director of the House Committee on Rules.


Republicans have also pledged to have an open rule on all spending bills, which means that members of both parties will be able to offer more amendments and have more debate, which in theory would lead to more scrutiny for each government agency seeking financing.

Let the record show that I strongly agree with all these ideas. And I hope they stick to them. Nancy Pelosi said she was going to do many of the same things, but not right away, when she became Speaker. But then she told us that there were some things she wanted to get done right away before she made substantive changes. But John Boehner is going to be different.

Or is he? Read on:

A big exception will be the bill to repeal the health care law that House Republicans plan to bring up next week. That bill will not be subject to amendments, nor will Republicans have to abide by their own new rules that compel them to offset the cost of new bills that add to the deficit; the health care repeal and tax cuts are not subject to this new rule.



Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, had hoped to propose an amendment to the health care repeal legislation to provide for an up-or-down vote on several major components of the law. The components include elimination of lifetime limits on care, coverage of individuals up to age 26 on their parents’ health care plans, the banning of discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions and free preventive care for older Americans.

Democrats are displeased.

As should everyone else be.

Economy to USA: "I resolve to have a great year!'

In some ways, this is a lame initial entry for a new year, especially after so few postings lately, but in some ways it's perfect too. From Yahoo News today:

"All positive indicators:

• A key index of activity at manufacturing firms showed that in December, America's factories expanded faster than in any month since May. Within that index, new orders and production were also up, suggesting that future months could see continuing rises.
• A Commerce Department report showed that construction spending rose by more than expected in November -- the third straight month that it has risen. The construction industry was hit hard by the housing bust but now appears to be on the rebound.
• New jobless claims recently fell to their lowest weekly level since 2008.
• And the Dow Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 indexes all rose yesterday, the first trading day of the new year, continuing strong gains from late 2010."

And from the Daily Local:

INDICATOR: December Supply Managers’ Manufacturing Survey

KEY DATA: ISM (manufacturing): 57.0 (up 0.4 point); new orders: 60.9 (up 4.3 points); production: 60.7 (up 5.7 points)
IN A NUTSHELL: “Manufacturing ended the year on a positive note and the surging orders point to stronger growth ahead.”
WHAT IT MEANS: The key figure in the report was the sharp rise in new orders. The demand for manufactured goods was at the highest point since last spring.Interestingly, while both export orders and imports continued to rise, they did so less rapidly. The implication is that much of the new demand is coming from domestic activity, which is good news.The rise in orders led to a jump in production.


MARKETS AND FED POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The economy is in good shape. The manufacturing sector remains quite solid and with orders strong, there is no reason to believe that will change anytime soon.
That bodes well for future overall economic growth, which we should accelerate as we go through the first half of the year."

 It's going to be a great economic year, I tell ya!