So, which is it?

Environment

The Left, and I know that's a broadly defined group, told us to sign Kyoto. A 'treaty' that obliged the US to make expensive changes to prevent carbon dioxide emissions while exempting most developing countries from these rules. Although we can debate the scale of these costs, there is no doubt that enforcement of the Kyoto Accords would raise production costs for American companies.

The Hero of the Left, President Clinton, passed NAFTA. But now Democrat candidates see jobs being lost to overseas -- a totally foreseable eventuality -- as a campaign issue. They now chant for fair trade instead of free trade. Fair trade, in this case, means that other countries should meet the same standards that face American employers. These standards include environmental standards.

So, which is it? Should we saddle manufacturers in the US with additional environmental regulations which come with higher production costs and make moving jobs overseas more attractive while giving a pass on these regulations to third world, job-stealing countries? Or should we demand that China and Mexico saddle their businesses with environmental regulations by threatening sanctions or tariffs in the name of "fair" trade? It can't be both even though a Leftist politician can promise both and not pull a muscle.

Corporate Welfare

When the Right was attacking the Welfare Queens and rallying support for change of the welfare system, the Left responded with attacks on corporate welfare. But now that jobs are a campaign issue, giving tax breaks to corporations in an effort to bribe them into keeping jobs here in the US seems like a really good idea to the Left. Gov. Granholm (D) of Michigan offered Electrolux no taxes for 20 years and built the company a new plant to convince them to keep 2,700 jobs in the state. Isn't that coporate welfare? So, which is it?

I've given up expecting honesty in politics and I was aiming for consistancy.

I think I was shooting too high.

Comedy loses again to Political Correctness

Stephen Page of BNL: "Conan O'Brien's visit to Toronto ended in controversy. What a surprise. This isn't because anyone was actually offended by something, but rather that Canadians have an innate need to complain about EVERYTHING. This is the same desire to look concerned that got BNL banned from Toronto city hall in 1991. In the end, it just makes us all look like pious little church ladies, and horribly out of touch with how most Canadians actually felt; glad for the attention and the opportunity to celebrate the mark we've made on North Amercian popular culture."

That about sums it up

Brian Wilson: "Government rather than being the arbiter of conflicting rights and disputes has become judge, jury and enforcer of its moral standards. Those moral standards being nothing less than mindless submission to their authority."

The draft as deterrence to hawks

There's an evil syllogism running around that is patently false.

A draft will sweep up children of wealthy individuals
Because only poor people's children serve in the military
Only wealthy individuals are in favor of war
because they have no children in the military.
If wealthy children were in the military there would be no call for war.

Every statement in this syllogism is false.

1. There is a wide variety of socio-economic groups in the military.
2. Support for the war was from every socio-economic group not only the wealthy... in fact if you look at the hollywood jet set it would seem to be the opposite.
3. Parents of active military were as in support of the war as everyone else.

Most things in politics and political discussions do not upset me; it's all one big game. But this line of fallacious thinking is so disgusting that those who propose this make me sick.

Think about it who would allow their child to be drafted, Rosie O'Donnell or Tom Selleck? There's no doubt in my mind. You?

Who knew Robert Reich had all the answers?

Former Treasury Secretary Reich has a spot on NPR where he pontificates about how he knows for sure that there is one and only one secret to successful economic policy and he knows the secret. The other day he was trying like a little engine to prove the conservative “Trickle Down” has no validity and will never help anyone and that only the liberal “Trickle Up” will ever work.

He started by saying that it was President Bush’s plan to give tax cuts to the wealthy and then pray they invest the windfall in plants and factories in the U.S., creating jobs and thusly stimulating the economy. Mr. Reich do you really think you’re that slick or we’re that gullible? Bush gave tax cuts to everyone who pays income tax. Reich is purposefully repeating the Democrat mantra in order to perpetuate the class warfare Democrats rely upon for votes. The best way to convince someone that your argument is valid is to falsely characterize the other position. Reich’s motives for this are transparent as the rest of his argument is incongruous.

He went on to say that we now live in a global marketplace and that it is likely the rich will take their tax rebates (i.e. their own money) and invest it overseas. Those of us who believe in free markets do believe that capital will eventually seek an optimal outlet – overseas is just one possibility. Surprisingly, this is considered a bad thing by Mr. Reich. I’m sure that it would be a good thing if this money was never returned to the citizen who earned it and instead sent to a foreign country through USAID. More typically Leftist ideology – the government knows what to do with your money better than you do. Reich defines Americans directing money in overseas investment as undesirable. In 2000, President Clinton said,

We cannot accept a world in which part of humanity lives on the cutting edge of a new economy, and the rest live on the bare edge of survival. I think we have to do our part to change that - with expanded trade, expanded aid, and the expansion of freedom.

I quote President Clinton to show that Reich's diatribe only reveals what he wants you to see. If you want to invest in the developing world, you're evil. The Government taking your money through extortion and giving it to the developing world, that's good.

He then goes on to define the “trickle up” leftist strategy as investing in the health and education of the American people in order to make them more productive that naturally leads to an increasing standard of living. First, how could increasing life expectancy from 87 to 90+ do anything but bankrupt Social Security faster? Second, I’ve read story after story regretting the fact that even white-collar jobs are being exported overseas. This morning on NPR they mentioned that computer programming jobs were being sent to India because a programmer there could be upper middle class on $900 per month. Putting two and two together, even if we had a better educated workforce, unless they were willing to work for $12,000 per year, the job would be going to India. So then, exactly how does trickle up work? It kinda sound like the Russia of today -- healthy PhD's running around and working at McDonalds.

The only solace I take is that most of Western Europe has a more generous social welfare state, economies growing at a fraction of the rate of the US and birth rates that indicate complete depopulation within a few generations. We’ll be watching those countries precede us down the slide of irrelevancy unless someone figures out that the government cannot be all things to all people.

What's Rich?

When you hear Kerry say that he's going to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy, ask yourself what is the dividing line between wealthy and the rest of us. It's very well understood that almost no one thinks of themselves as rich. Because of this Kerry's threat isn't personal to most people. I can almost guarantee that if you're paying taxes, you're rich in the eyes of the Democrats. First off, the bottom 50% of citizens when ranked by income pay no income tax at all. The likelihood that you're not rich in Kerry's eyes is next to none. Second, ask yourself if you've ever heard a reporter ask Senetor Kerry what his definition of wealthy is. Have you heard that question? Of course not.

So when you hear him claim that he will rollback the tax cuts on the rich you should translate that as, "I'm gonna raise your taxes."

Unfunded mandate? Go figure.

I'm loving the educrats running around bemoaning the fact the No Child Left Behind Act is an unfunded mandate. I can't believe it; Federal dollars come with strings? You must be joking. It's always cool when the sap getting stuck with the bill isn't you. The Lefties never saw it this way; they've always seen the ever-expanding authority of the feds as, 'the right thing to do.' But now that the reins of the beast are in the hands of someone else and the maw is gnawing at the education system, it’s a violation of the Constitution. The national media’s support of the caterwauling gives me a chuckle with every story I hear.