We’re going to cover a lot of ground and have some good times. So come along for the ride.
Social Security
From Deroy Murdock at NRO:
So, what Democrats recommend on Social Security is zippo, a debauched dollar, or a huge tax hike. By comparison, President Bush’s voluntary personal retirement accounts look sexier by the day.
Whatever happens, I’m still not counting on SS in any way, shape, or form. I like the personal account ideal. It doesn’t serve as a tool for the redistribution of wealth. Also, it encourages the average citizen to promote business and profits. This is in direct opposition to the flailing unions and greens. Both of which I feel are terribly misguided in their respective approaches.
China:
It seems the conservatives are split on what to do about China. Where’s line? (“Can’t see the line, can you Russ?”)
Daniel Gross at Slate examines the desire of China to purchase failing American companies:
So far, the New China Price hasn’t ruffled many feathers. Stockholders are generally pleased with the higher bids. And for stakeholders in manufacturing firms like Maytag or IBM’s PC unit, a sort of resignation has set in. Things are bad already—how much worse could they be under Chinese ownership? What’s more, a great deal of what the Chinese companies are seeking to acquire is uniquely American and can’t be replaced easily by overseas labor—the management, the brand, the legacy.
But don’t expect the good feelings to last. Remember what happened when Japanese companies began buying American ones in the ’80s. Soon there will be opposition to the China purchases from the nascent mercantilist movement in this country. Last Friday, Republican congressmen Duncan Hunter and Richard Pombo called on President Bush to review the possible sale of Unocal to CNOOC.
The Daily Standard’s Irwin M. Stelzer ponders the effects of China and Unocal.
But whatever the outcome of CNOOC’s decision to bid for a major American oil company, it has raised the temperature of the already red-hot dispute over trade policy. The authorities are starting to realize that U.S. companies are not operating in a free market as that term is generally understood. The battle for Chevron is not a bidding war between two privately owned companies, both responsible for maximizing shareholder value. CNOOC is 70 percent state-owned, the beneficiary of cheap government financing, and expected to act in support of the regime’s geopolitical objectives. That makes a mockery of the Chinese authorities’ warning to the Bush administration not to politicize the CNOOC takeover bid. China has decided to use its state resources to convert its major companies into important multinationals–part of an aggressive policy of projecting Chinese power on a global basis. If that’s not political, nothing is.
CNBC and NRO’s Larry Kudlow vehemently opposes efforts to revalue the Yuan:
The freedom to trade and the freedom to choose are central to the economic freedom that’s necessary for nations to grow and prosper. Centuries of economic history confirm this, and yet some people seem to want to repeat the worst mistakes of the past. Open trade and currency stability enormously benefit both the U.S. and China and may well lead to improved international relations. Why do senators Smoot Schumer and Hawley Graham want to disrupt the 21st century march to peace and prosperity?
Personally, I prefer a free trade policy with China. If they wish to devalue their currency, they’re essentially giving us gifts — or discounts in the least. I’m not worried about Unocal. The demand for oil is not national. It is global. If one particular company wishes to restrain its supplies, others will gladly offer their services. Furthermore, I believe that as the average Chinese citizen grows wealthier, it will become much more difficult for the the ruling Communist party to exert control. One billion pissed of Chinamen (“Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.”) cannot easily be ignored by the Chinese government. Similarly, if we begin a trade war that throws off their economy, we will become the enemy instead of the ruling communist party.
More from Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek (You should read this blog every day before you even think of reading mine.)
The War on Terror
The Weekly Standards Reuel Marc Gerecht asks “What’s the Matter with Gitmo?”
Now, some of the concerns the senator expressed do demand the attention of the administration; and to those, we will return in a moment. But first, let us look at the belief, which is now in many corners a firm conviction, that Guantanamo has degraded our security and become a recruiting tool for our enemies. It is impossible to talk sensibly about Guantanamo and other prisons unless we can assess these claims empirically. Secret CIA interrogation centers are undoubtedly a moral, political, foreign-policy, and intelligence problem for the United States. And it’s a decent bet that the distribution of information from terrorist interrogations at these facilities has been insufficient to allow anyone to judge how successful Langley’s methods and men have been. But neither the CIA facilities, nor the far more open, regulated, and by most accounts kind Guantanamo jail, are likely to have made us less safe by boosting the recruitment of holy warriors. It’s possible that the humiliating image of these prisons is somewhere in the cauldron that makes for death-wish holy warriors. Not enough time has passed to allow us to know for sure one way or the other.
The article is a bit lengthy, but Gerecht raises many questions and concerns that I would expect from a manager in charge of a similar situation. It is all quite reasonable and level-headed. He goes on:
However, it is far more reasonable to suppose, given the history of al Qaeda and of the first generation of holy warriors, that the prison’s closure would be seen on Islamic extremist websites–the ones New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is rightly terrified of–as an enormous boon to militants. Many in the American elite are beginning to revert to a pre-9/11 worldview, where U.S. aggression or “unilateralism,” not American weakness or self-doubt, is seen as the fuel for bin Ladenism. Yet this is a reversal of history. It was the fearful U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984 and from Somalia in 1994, not the original incursions there, that bin Laden saw as proof that determined Muslims could best the United States.
The ACLU, HRW, and the Times complain that many of the witnesses were held for weeks or more. But what they don’t tell you is that this was done under court supervision, with regular status conferences so that judges could be apprised of when the grand jury testimony would take place and satisfy themselves that the witnesses’ rights were not being abused.
What they also don’t tell you is that much of the delay in many cases was due to requests from the witnesses’ own lawyers. That’s because lying to government agents during an investigation is a felony, and, similarly, lying to a federal grand jury is perjury — also a felony.
And in my attempt to be fair and balanced, I even ventured to The Nation (as soon as I finish this post, I will be taking numerous showers as if I had uber-OCD). Robert Scheer notes that “Even Bush’s GOP Allies Are Breaking Ranks.” I will pick only the first and last paragraphs, otherwise I shall have to write a lengthy dismissal of the entire piece.
How best to support our troops in Iraq? By sacrificing more of them in a war that should never have been launched and has no end in sight, or by bringing them home? The latter is the best course for the U.S. and Iraq. Our military occupation fuels nationalist and religious insurgents and we should begin a phased withdrawal as soon as feasible, while increasing aid.
[...]
Iraq, as Vietnam, will likely have serious problems after the American withdrawal. These problems, however, will be Iraq’s, destined for Iraqis to sort out. Simply put, the best thing we can do now to encourage stability in Iraq is to stop serving as a recruitment poster for the insurgency.
The display of weakness is the last measure the United States should assume. Unfortunately I was too engulfed in my engineering studies to spend time in psychology classrooms. I do understand that acts of weakness only serve to embolden your enemy. This is particularly true when ground is gained by the enemy. I am particularly displeased by the Republicans who are bending at the knees to appease their constituencies. This is part of the reason why I will never, ever, vote for John McCain.
Unfortunately I got ahead of myself. Scheer merely notes that, “we should begin a phased withdrawal as soon as feasible, while increasing aid.” Of course this “plan” reminds me of John Kerry’s “plan” that was already understood by everyone who paid attention. Train the Iraqis, plant a democracy, and leave when their self-defense forces were credible. What exactly is a “phased withdrawal as soon as feasible?” Beyond that, how much, or what type of “aid” is necessary? Is that monetary aid? Diplomatic aid? Military aid?
The Republican leadership must successfully campaign in public to create support for its initiatives. This burden should not be held by the chief executive. Nay, it should be shouldered by the entire party. The Democratic party has successfully unified itself — and only for the reason of obstructionism. Unification, however, has its advantages.
To the right: stand up for your pragmatism and sell it. The right is losing the PR battle. The American public is not stupid, merely ignorant. “Stupidity is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.” Instead of supporting ignorance, the dominant party’s primary task should be informing.
(this is a first draft, so I’ve probably made many errors, but the errors ought to make for a better discussion.)
