Stimulus you say? You be the judge
By the numbers:
- $825 billion total (but with interest by 2020 - the supposed target "pay off by" date - 1.2 Trillion)
- $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.
- $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions)
- $ 90 billion for infrastructure
- $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states
- $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks
- $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources
- $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)
- $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."
- $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)
- $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
- $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."
Here is a further breakdown of the package:
Energy
$32 billion: Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes
Science and Technology
$10 billion: Science facilities
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas
Infrastructure
$30 billion: Transportation projects
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion: Water projects
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects
Education
$41 billion: Grants to local school districts
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization)
Health Care
$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4.1 billion: Preventative care
Jobless Benefits
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training.
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid.
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.
Taxes
Individuals:
*$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion.
*Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor.
*Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
*A $2,500 college tuition tax credit.
*Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time.
Businesses:
*An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two.
*Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
*Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases.
*Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans
When is the money being is going to be spent, and on what?
(Note: the Preliminary CBO Report delays referenced below reflects their study on 40% of the stimulus package [read: not including items like the tax cuts, jobless benefits, etc, etc], reflecting only the "directonary spending" as in infrastructure/direct employment effect).
-The government wouldn't be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Budget Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019.
- Less than $5 billion of the $30 billion set aside for highway spending would be spent within the next two years, the CBO said.
- Only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent.
- Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half.
- About $907 million of a $6 billion plan to expand broadband access in rural and other underserved areas would be spent by 2011, CBO said.
- Just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year.
Who will be spending the money? Will the states be receiving any money to spend, community organizations? Churches?
The economic stimulus plan now moving through Congress would shower billions of federal dollars on state and local governments desperate for cash:
• The House stimulus bill includes an extra $87 billion in federal aid to state Medicaid programs.
• It allots some $120 billion to boost state and city education programs.
• There's $4 billion for state and local anticrime initiatives in the legislation, not to mention $30-plus billion for highways and other infrastructure projects.
• $6.9 billion to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions.
• $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent, with extra relief tied to rates of unemployment.
• $120 billion to states and school districts to stabilize budgets and prevent tax increases and deep cuts to critical education programs.
Overall, about one-quarter of the entire $825 billion recovery package would be devoted to activities crucial to governors, mayors, and local school boards - making them among the plans biggest beneficiaries.
Sources: USHouse ChristianScienceMonitor WallStreetJournal CBO/prelimreport/Bloomberg
And these odds and ends, to get hyper specific on some "favorites" of mine:
And remember, this is billed, sold, and packaged as an ECONOMIC STIMULUS package.
- Diesel Emissions Reduction: $300 million for grants and loans to state and local governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions, benefiting public health and reducing global warming.
-Electric Transportation: $200 million for a new grant program to encourage electric vehicle technologies. (by the way - it takes 200 mil to not MAKE, but encourage their being made ... what the hell?)
-Smart Appliances: $300 million to provide consumers with rebates for buying energy efficient Energy Star products to replace old appliances, which will lower energy bills.
-GSA Federal Fleet: $600 million to replace older vehicles owned by the federal government with alternative fuel automobiles that will save on fuel costs and reduce carbon emissions. (note: no qualifier that it be domestic cars)
-Home Weatherization: $6.2 billion to help low-income families reduce their energy costs by weatherizing their homes and make our country more energy efficient.
-NASA: $600 million, including $400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.
-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites and Sensors: $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling.
-U.S. Geological Survey: $200 million to repair and modernize U.S.G.S. science facilities and equipment, including improvements to laboratories, earthquake monitoring systems, and computing capacity.
-DTV Conversion Coupons: $650 million to continue the coupon program to enable American households to convert from analog television transmission to digital transmission.
-Clean Water State Revolving Fund: $6 billion for loans to help communities upgrade wastewater treatment systems.
-Health Information Technology: $20 billion to jumpstart efforts to computerize health records to cut costs and reduce medical errors.
-Medicaid Coverage for the Unemployed: Provides 100 percent federal funding through 2010 for optional State Medicaid coverage of individuals (and their dependents) who are receiving unemployment benefits or have exhausted those benefits and have no health insurance coverage.
-Lead Paint: $100 million for competitive grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to remove lead-based paint hazards in low-income housing.
-Periodic Census and Programs, Communications: $1 billion for work necessary to ensure a successful 2010 census, including $150 million for expanded communications and outreach programs to minimize undercounting of minority groups.
-Medicaid Aid to States (FMAP): Approximately $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the federal government reimburses states, with additional relief tied to rates of unemployment. In the previous recession the federal government increased its contribution to Medicaid to help states avoid cuts in health benefits at a time when low-income patient loads are increasing and State revenues are declining.
-Department of Labor Worker Protection and Oversight: $80 million to ensure that worker protection laws are enforced as recovery infrastructure investments are carried out.
And my personal favorite outside the "sex ed" money for condoms (that'll stimulate "something" anyway):
-University Research Facilities: $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete for biomedical research grants.
This is quite literally giving out federal dollars to institutions in order to help them more effectively get more federal dollar !!!
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
OKay, it's MULTI-PERIL, not Disaster.
But don't let that spoil the love fest! If I knew how to link a damned site I'd do it. Search Gene Taylor and go to his online office and read to your heart's content. His blog is pretty cool. I don't need to argue multi-peril insurance. He does it so much better.
Here's my problem with the private sector in one word.
Insurance.
41 months to the day since Katrina hit, try to get insurance here in South Mississippi.
Real estate? Slightly above the national average. Well above the depressed areas like Las Vegas, LA, New York, Houston, etc. But what is the firm ceiling on the market? The fire hose to our little matchstick of recovery? Insurance. None of the big companies want new policies without government backing. None of the small companies can offer affordable rates. The state windpool mandates an astronomical premium (some 350% above national average, 600% above pre-storm amounts annually.)
Our boy Gene Taylor has the answer. The Federal Disaster Insurance, an expanded version of the Federal Flood insurance, which if incorporated into the stimulus package would have very tangible, real results along vast geographical regions of our nation. One of the reasons Taylor, our Democratic Congressman here in South Mississippi, voted against the package was the lack of anything for his district. 900 billion and nothing for us? How much would that expanded coverage cost the feds? As much as two bailouts and a couple of stimulus packages? As much as the 4 trillion (yes, trillion, 12 zeros) if Obama decides that the feds buying back the bad assets American banks have crushed themselves with is the next big change America says "Yes we can!" to?
Here's government spending that stimulates economic growth. Expand the flood pool to cover disaster. Sell policies everywhere. Pay and take as necessary. People want to build here. The money is ready for people to build here. But without insurance no one CAN build here. If Obama/Bush are going to go 5+ trillion in bail out/stimulus, how about something that would WORK?
41 months to the day since Katrina hit, try to get insurance here in South Mississippi.
Real estate? Slightly above the national average. Well above the depressed areas like Las Vegas, LA, New York, Houston, etc. But what is the firm ceiling on the market? The fire hose to our little matchstick of recovery? Insurance. None of the big companies want new policies without government backing. None of the small companies can offer affordable rates. The state windpool mandates an astronomical premium (some 350% above national average, 600% above pre-storm amounts annually.)
Our boy Gene Taylor has the answer. The Federal Disaster Insurance, an expanded version of the Federal Flood insurance, which if incorporated into the stimulus package would have very tangible, real results along vast geographical regions of our nation. One of the reasons Taylor, our Democratic Congressman here in South Mississippi, voted against the package was the lack of anything for his district. 900 billion and nothing for us? How much would that expanded coverage cost the feds? As much as two bailouts and a couple of stimulus packages? As much as the 4 trillion (yes, trillion, 12 zeros) if Obama decides that the feds buying back the bad assets American banks have crushed themselves with is the next big change America says "Yes we can!" to?
Here's government spending that stimulates economic growth. Expand the flood pool to cover disaster. Sell policies everywhere. Pay and take as necessary. People want to build here. The money is ready for people to build here. But without insurance no one CAN build here. If Obama/Bush are going to go 5+ trillion in bail out/stimulus, how about something that would WORK?
A proud constituent...
Reading the paper this morning and buried under the massive headline of the day, (Gulfport mayor Brett Warr indicted on federal Katrina fraud charges) was Gene Taylor voting against the stimulus package.
{sniff}
So proud of my congressman...
{sniff}
So proud of my congressman...
You are right...
But, I wasn't making the claim that my examples were modern "holy wars". My point was to show modern examples of Islam's inability to cohabitate with other religions outside of very strong secular societies that make equality among religions a priority.
History is replete with examples of Muslim persecutions... when the First Crusade took Jerusalem, the blood ran in flows as deep as a man's ankles because the Crusaders killed every man, woman and child in the city... Muslim, Jew and Christian alike... because they couldn't tell the difference at a glance. Vlad Tsepes impaled an entire Muslim army that he had forced to surrender... more than 12,000 men. Ghengis Khan's attack of Samarkand (then part of Persia) was so brutal and devastating that the damage inflicted can still be seen today... nearly 800 years later. The Soviets are famous for their persecution of the Jews, especially under Stalin, but their repression of Muslims in the eastern SSRs was every bit as tyrannical and even more successful.
I was attempting to show that Islam, in general, promotes an inherent intolerance with other religions.
History is replete with examples of Muslim persecutions... when the First Crusade took Jerusalem, the blood ran in flows as deep as a man's ankles because the Crusaders killed every man, woman and child in the city... Muslim, Jew and Christian alike... because they couldn't tell the difference at a glance. Vlad Tsepes impaled an entire Muslim army that he had forced to surrender... more than 12,000 men. Ghengis Khan's attack of Samarkand (then part of Persia) was so brutal and devastating that the damage inflicted can still be seen today... nearly 800 years later. The Soviets are famous for their persecution of the Jews, especially under Stalin, but their repression of Muslims in the eastern SSRs was every bit as tyrannical and even more successful.
I was attempting to show that Islam, in general, promotes an inherent intolerance with other religions.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Serbia was the Aggressor
If I'm not mistaken Serbia was the Aggressor and they are Orthodox Christian. Bosnia is Muslim and they were the ones being exterminated.
I agree with the rest of your post but I have to throw that one out to ya. I'm not even sure that was some sort of holy war. I think that one like all conflicts ended up being over real estate.
I agree with the rest of your post but I have to throw that one out to ya. I'm not even sure that was some sort of holy war. I think that one like all conflicts ended up being over real estate.
Winter...
Six inches of snow last night, and 2 hours of freezing rain and sleet this morning...
{sigh}
I'm off to start shoveling and scraping so I can go to work this evening.
{sigh}
I'm off to start shoveling and scraping so I can go to work this evening.
On "radical Islam"...
Jambo and I talked for a bit last night, and I wanted to take some of that and add to what Ryan said.
Jambo was comparing our fight with radical Islam to our fight with Communism. Both called for the eventual global domination by their individual ideologies, and both proved to be thought-processes that were completely incompatible with alternative societies and cultures. Communism only took about a century to show it couldn't work in the forms that it had taken, while Islam (in general) has been breeding conflicts and aggression for the last 1,399 years... and they have been doing it with EVERY SINGLE society and culture they have encountered. Every single one.
I can't count how many times I have heard people say that Islam is "at war" with Christianity, and has been since the Middle Ages. I disagree, but only on the context of the statement. If Islam were actually "at war" with Christianity... the conflicts now known as the Crusades would either still be going on, or one of the religions would have been wiped out. While I do not argue that the troubles in the Middle East can certainly be linked to the struggles between Muslims and Crusader Christians... that is NOT the struggle we see today. Today, we see Islam (in general) carrying on the constant struggle to erase Israel from the face of the globe.
BUT, this is only ONE region. Let's look at the very recent past in places where Islam has "butted heads" with OTHER religions and cultures.
The Indian sub-continent. Modern Pakistan exists because Muslims (in general) could not co-exist with Hindus. The 40 years of violence and terror that has marked the relationship between India and Pakistan is ample evidence of the level of hatred and distrust that results from that kind of religious intolerance.
Indonesia. The 86% Islamic majority of Indonesia has a long and storied history of repression and violence against the 10% Christian/Hindu minority, and has become, in the last decade, a haven for international radicals that breed terrorism and violence abroad.
East Africa. Muslim minorities have long been the root of violence in countries and cultures such as Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. Places where the Muslim population is the majority (Sudan and Chad jump to mind), we see examples of some of the worst cases of human rights violations in the last 200 years.
The Caucus and Trans-Caucus regions. The only thing that kept the violence and bigotry that I am trying to demonstrate from having a century-long history here was the USSR. Since the Soviets fell apart, we see how true my point is... violence and terror as instruments of government and policy in such places as Chechnya, Turkmenistan, Khasikstan, Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia, et al.
The Balkans. I'm not even going to list this region's problems... just think back to the early 90s.
THESE are the examples I am using of the history of Islamic interaction with other religions and cultures... and these are only the most recent. These are the fruits of islolationist, fundamentalist Islamic interpretation and teaching... warfare, violence, destruction and genocide.
Comments?
Jambo was comparing our fight with radical Islam to our fight with Communism. Both called for the eventual global domination by their individual ideologies, and both proved to be thought-processes that were completely incompatible with alternative societies and cultures. Communism only took about a century to show it couldn't work in the forms that it had taken, while Islam (in general) has been breeding conflicts and aggression for the last 1,399 years... and they have been doing it with EVERY SINGLE society and culture they have encountered. Every single one.
I can't count how many times I have heard people say that Islam is "at war" with Christianity, and has been since the Middle Ages. I disagree, but only on the context of the statement. If Islam were actually "at war" with Christianity... the conflicts now known as the Crusades would either still be going on, or one of the religions would have been wiped out. While I do not argue that the troubles in the Middle East can certainly be linked to the struggles between Muslims and Crusader Christians... that is NOT the struggle we see today. Today, we see Islam (in general) carrying on the constant struggle to erase Israel from the face of the globe.
BUT, this is only ONE region. Let's look at the very recent past in places where Islam has "butted heads" with OTHER religions and cultures.
The Indian sub-continent. Modern Pakistan exists because Muslims (in general) could not co-exist with Hindus. The 40 years of violence and terror that has marked the relationship between India and Pakistan is ample evidence of the level of hatred and distrust that results from that kind of religious intolerance.
Indonesia. The 86% Islamic majority of Indonesia has a long and storied history of repression and violence against the 10% Christian/Hindu minority, and has become, in the last decade, a haven for international radicals that breed terrorism and violence abroad.
East Africa. Muslim minorities have long been the root of violence in countries and cultures such as Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. Places where the Muslim population is the majority (Sudan and Chad jump to mind), we see examples of some of the worst cases of human rights violations in the last 200 years.
The Caucus and Trans-Caucus regions. The only thing that kept the violence and bigotry that I am trying to demonstrate from having a century-long history here was the USSR. Since the Soviets fell apart, we see how true my point is... violence and terror as instruments of government and policy in such places as Chechnya, Turkmenistan, Khasikstan, Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia, et al.
The Balkans. I'm not even going to list this region's problems... just think back to the early 90s.
THESE are the examples I am using of the history of Islamic interaction with other religions and cultures... and these are only the most recent. These are the fruits of islolationist, fundamentalist Islamic interpretation and teaching... warfare, violence, destruction and genocide.
Comments?
On "fairness"...
I can't even play devil's advocate on a topic like this... it is simply ludicrous to imagine that any rational, right-minded American would favor the Fairness Doctrine when applied to radio or TV.
I wanted to touch on the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left when it comes to radio commentary...
Lately, for more than a week now, I have to admit that I am simply BORED with listening to the same WHINING from the standard fair of conservative talk radio... Wilkow, Hannity, Levin (the main three I hear on sat-radio). No substantial change in topic or content from the pre-election coverage... and it is getting very OLD.
So, in an effort to break it up somewhat, I have been moving the proverbial "dial" on the sat-radio to Sirius Left.
No one who preaches in favor of the Fairness Doctrine should do so until they have listened to a week's worth of Mike Malloy's radio show. If you take a week's worth of the most passionate and controversial conservative talk-radio programing, you couldn't find 1% of the pure and unadulterated HATE and BIGOTRY and ENTHUSIASTIC IGNORANCE that one 3-hour program of Mike Malloy contains.
This brings me to my point... what POSSIBLE programing could they hope to pair off against the most popular conservative talk-shows? What liberal show would be opposite Rush Limbaugh? Lynn Samuels? Who would counter Hannity? Thom Hartman? Will they match the Wilkow Majority with the Rachael Madow Show? Mike Church can play against Ron Reagan (only because Michael Reagan ended his own radio show), right?
None of the liberal programs I have listed will GAIN advertizers because they will not GAIN listeners... the programs will STILL SUCK! Conservative hosts won't lose revenue because they will be the ONLY rational, serious, and honest programs to listen to (as they are now).
Not to mention, even IF the Fairness Doctrine is re-enacted by Congress, it won't stand up against the inevitable trip to the Supreme Court. The original intent of the Fairnes Doctrine was that equal OPPORTUNITY for publication would be provided to the opposite camp, not mandatory application of opposite views. No one NOW can claim that liberal talk show hosts don't have equal opportunity... what they lack is any kind of CONTENT, TALENT, or consumer SUPPORT. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, the role of the Federal government to provide content, talent or an audience to left-wing whackos with a desire to be heard.
I wanted to touch on the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left when it comes to radio commentary...
Lately, for more than a week now, I have to admit that I am simply BORED with listening to the same WHINING from the standard fair of conservative talk radio... Wilkow, Hannity, Levin (the main three I hear on sat-radio). No substantial change in topic or content from the pre-election coverage... and it is getting very OLD.
So, in an effort to break it up somewhat, I have been moving the proverbial "dial" on the sat-radio to Sirius Left.
No one who preaches in favor of the Fairness Doctrine should do so until they have listened to a week's worth of Mike Malloy's radio show. If you take a week's worth of the most passionate and controversial conservative talk-radio programing, you couldn't find 1% of the pure and unadulterated HATE and BIGOTRY and ENTHUSIASTIC IGNORANCE that one 3-hour program of Mike Malloy contains.
This brings me to my point... what POSSIBLE programing could they hope to pair off against the most popular conservative talk-shows? What liberal show would be opposite Rush Limbaugh? Lynn Samuels? Who would counter Hannity? Thom Hartman? Will they match the Wilkow Majority with the Rachael Madow Show? Mike Church can play against Ron Reagan (only because Michael Reagan ended his own radio show), right?
None of the liberal programs I have listed will GAIN advertizers because they will not GAIN listeners... the programs will STILL SUCK! Conservative hosts won't lose revenue because they will be the ONLY rational, serious, and honest programs to listen to (as they are now).
Not to mention, even IF the Fairness Doctrine is re-enacted by Congress, it won't stand up against the inevitable trip to the Supreme Court. The original intent of the Fairnes Doctrine was that equal OPPORTUNITY for publication would be provided to the opposite camp, not mandatory application of opposite views. No one NOW can claim that liberal talk show hosts don't have equal opportunity... what they lack is any kind of CONTENT, TALENT, or consumer SUPPORT. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, the role of the Federal government to provide content, talent or an audience to left-wing whackos with a desire to be heard.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Does FCC stand for F*** CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS?
Perhaps.
This week our new president created a bit of buzz in the circles of conservative intelligentsia. Speaking to GOP House leaders on the new bloated spending ... err ... I mean"stimulus" package Obama warned, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The leader of the free world sounds rather too focused on a single radio host, if you ask me. And in Rush's response he seemed to agree: "He [Obama] is obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party." I would agree.
Now Drudge is reporting that those same GOP House leaders are warning Rush to back off of the criticism of both them, and get this now, President Obama! They don't think the public can stomach partisan politics right now - I read that as they're afraid they'll be charged as racists or obstructionists in the path of the chosen one - and that he (Rush) should remember that they could lose a battle with Democrats over The Fairness Doctrine.
And THERE it is - the back drop for which all this chatter about Rush, by the president, is set against, The Fairness Doctrine. Now there were more then a couple aspects to this doctrine but the long and short of it is this. It was instated by the FCC in 1949. It says that if you allow editorial comments or commentary on controversial issues from one point of view, that you are required - in order to maintain your broadcast license - to air the opposing point of view. It was meant, at a time of limited news source (read: before cable, Internet and a plethora of periodicals) to ensure "both sides" (presumably between Republicans and Democrats) would be heard. This is separate and away from the "Equal Time" requirement of political candidates mind you. We are talking private citizens. Over the years its legality has been challenged in court, many times.
Now, the FCC is governed by a 5 person commission. FCC policy is voted in or out by this commission, in majority fashion. Every commissioner is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serves a 5 year term. The law states that no more then 3 of the commissioners can be of a single political party at a time. Right now it is 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, bare that in mind. In the 80's, when the FCC became a 3 - 2 Republican majority, The Fairness Doctrine was abolished. It died a long death with various court challenges and piece meal repeals by the FCC, but under the Reagan FCC it was abolished in total. In fact Democrat law makers passed legislation in 1987 attempting to codify this FCC rule as law - Reagan vetoed it. Bush 41 told Tip O'Neal point blank when the issue again arose, "I'll veto it." Well - THAT abolishment is what made Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, et al possible. A radio station manager could now put on Rush for 3 hours, sell millions in advertising and not have to worry about putting on a liberal the next day to counter him. It turned the A.M. talk radio dogma of "local, local, local" on its head, because now you could set up a regularly scheduled political opinion program like Rush, without having to make time for the alternative opinion the next day. It allowed the most talented hosts a regular format without interruption in scheduling or monologue. That combined with a national hunger among conservatives to find SOMEONE in media that didn't have a liberal bias caused an explosion of conservative talk radio into the billion dollar business that it is today.
Now, back to the current FCC make up. Deborah Tate is resigning at the end of her term this month. Why? She knows full well that President Obama will not resubmit her name, she's a Republican. Obama will invariably replace her with a Democrat. Why is that important? it will then be a 3-2 Democrat commission and Senator Dick Durbin (D) IL, John Kerry, various Democrat House members too numerous to mention (a total of 24) have been making rumblings of reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, even discussing what the reinstated rule would look like (superficial modifications), all the way up to now making it a law given no threat of veto would come from a President Obama. What affect would this have? Destroy talk radio in its current form. For every issue Rush et al comment on in a Monday program, station managers would have to air the alternative opinion on Tuesday. It would destroy the format. The market has decided the winners and losers in ideological A.M. talk radio and a government mandate to give 50% of the way time is currently structured on talk radio to the ratings "losers", well stations will just opt for Top 40, or classic rock. A.M. conservative talk radio would die a quick death.
Now you may say - "so what, they'll go to Sirrius." Well that's not the point. The government has no business in regulating political speech of private citizens on public airways the way it does obscenities and pornography, or even actual candidates. This is a First Amendment issue. Not to mention, if a free program accessed by switiching on any ol' little radio has to move to a subscriber based satellite broadcast, the commercial sales will plummet through the floor, because so will the amount of listeners. And Democrats know all of this. Rather then try and compete, or being satisfied with owning the loyalty and bias of 90% of major newspapers; NBC; ABC; CBS; CNN; MSNBC, they still desire to squelch the last major, popular, ideological opposition. They aren't in the business of beating us anymore, if this happens, they're trying to destroy us, as a movement. With the flick of Obama's pen followed by a single 5 person "aye", free speech on the radio airways will be a thing of the past.
****
The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
-Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
So now political speech, the most protected and vital type of speech is akin to pornography and vulgarity if it takes the form of criticism of President Obama and his ideological comrades?
****
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Old fashioned? This is the same "gentleman" whom accused our GITMO interrogators, members of the US military, of acts "... reminiscent of PolPot, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Gulags." It was conservative talk radio that forever dubbed him: "Turban Durbin."
****
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
And as we all know ... NPR is fair and balanced, right Dianne?
In an age with countless resources of electronic media they want to squelch the strongest refuge of their harshest critics by shamelessly advocating GOVERNMENT MANDATED POLITICAL PROGRAMMING on the radio. Does anyone besides myself find that a frightening prospect?
This week our new president created a bit of buzz in the circles of conservative intelligentsia. Speaking to GOP House leaders on the new bloated spending ... err ... I mean"stimulus" package Obama warned, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." The leader of the free world sounds rather too focused on a single radio host, if you ask me. And in Rush's response he seemed to agree: "He [Obama] is obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party." I would agree.
Now Drudge is reporting that those same GOP House leaders are warning Rush to back off of the criticism of both them, and get this now, President Obama! They don't think the public can stomach partisan politics right now - I read that as they're afraid they'll be charged as racists or obstructionists in the path of the chosen one - and that he (Rush) should remember that they could lose a battle with Democrats over The Fairness Doctrine.
And THERE it is - the back drop for which all this chatter about Rush, by the president, is set against, The Fairness Doctrine. Now there were more then a couple aspects to this doctrine but the long and short of it is this. It was instated by the FCC in 1949. It says that if you allow editorial comments or commentary on controversial issues from one point of view, that you are required - in order to maintain your broadcast license - to air the opposing point of view. It was meant, at a time of limited news source (read: before cable, Internet and a plethora of periodicals) to ensure "both sides" (presumably between Republicans and Democrats) would be heard. This is separate and away from the "Equal Time" requirement of political candidates mind you. We are talking private citizens. Over the years its legality has been challenged in court, many times.
Now, the FCC is governed by a 5 person commission. FCC policy is voted in or out by this commission, in majority fashion. Every commissioner is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serves a 5 year term. The law states that no more then 3 of the commissioners can be of a single political party at a time. Right now it is 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, bare that in mind. In the 80's, when the FCC became a 3 - 2 Republican majority, The Fairness Doctrine was abolished. It died a long death with various court challenges and piece meal repeals by the FCC, but under the Reagan FCC it was abolished in total. In fact Democrat law makers passed legislation in 1987 attempting to codify this FCC rule as law - Reagan vetoed it. Bush 41 told Tip O'Neal point blank when the issue again arose, "I'll veto it." Well - THAT abolishment is what made Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, et al possible. A radio station manager could now put on Rush for 3 hours, sell millions in advertising and not have to worry about putting on a liberal the next day to counter him. It turned the A.M. talk radio dogma of "local, local, local" on its head, because now you could set up a regularly scheduled political opinion program like Rush, without having to make time for the alternative opinion the next day. It allowed the most talented hosts a regular format without interruption in scheduling or monologue. That combined with a national hunger among conservatives to find SOMEONE in media that didn't have a liberal bias caused an explosion of conservative talk radio into the billion dollar business that it is today.
Now, back to the current FCC make up. Deborah Tate is resigning at the end of her term this month. Why? She knows full well that President Obama will not resubmit her name, she's a Republican. Obama will invariably replace her with a Democrat. Why is that important? it will then be a 3-2 Democrat commission and Senator Dick Durbin (D) IL, John Kerry, various Democrat House members too numerous to mention (a total of 24) have been making rumblings of reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, even discussing what the reinstated rule would look like (superficial modifications), all the way up to now making it a law given no threat of veto would come from a President Obama. What affect would this have? Destroy talk radio in its current form. For every issue Rush et al comment on in a Monday program, station managers would have to air the alternative opinion on Tuesday. It would destroy the format. The market has decided the winners and losers in ideological A.M. talk radio and a government mandate to give 50% of the way time is currently structured on talk radio to the ratings "losers", well stations will just opt for Top 40, or classic rock. A.M. conservative talk radio would die a quick death.
Now you may say - "so what, they'll go to Sirrius." Well that's not the point. The government has no business in regulating political speech of private citizens on public airways the way it does obscenities and pornography, or even actual candidates. This is a First Amendment issue. Not to mention, if a free program accessed by switiching on any ol' little radio has to move to a subscriber based satellite broadcast, the commercial sales will plummet through the floor, because so will the amount of listeners. And Democrats know all of this. Rather then try and compete, or being satisfied with owning the loyalty and bias of 90% of major newspapers; NBC; ABC; CBS; CNN; MSNBC, they still desire to squelch the last major, popular, ideological opposition. They aren't in the business of beating us anymore, if this happens, they're trying to destroy us, as a movement. With the flick of Obama's pen followed by a single 5 person "aye", free speech on the radio airways will be a thing of the past.
****
The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
-Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
So now political speech, the most protected and vital type of speech is akin to pornography and vulgarity if it takes the form of criticism of President Obama and his ideological comrades?
****
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Old fashioned? This is the same "gentleman" whom accused our GITMO interrogators, members of the US military, of acts "... reminiscent of PolPot, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Gulags." It was conservative talk radio that forever dubbed him: "Turban Durbin."
****
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
And as we all know ... NPR is fair and balanced, right Dianne?
In an age with countless resources of electronic media they want to squelch the strongest refuge of their harshest critics by shamelessly advocating GOVERNMENT MANDATED POLITICAL PROGRAMMING on the radio. Does anyone besides myself find that a frightening prospect?
Just some observations ...
... about the initial impact of energy independence.
Now make no mistake, I agree on the need for energy independence. I think we all here see it as a vital national security issue (versus a "belief" in man's ability to affect the climate of a planet in catastrophic ways, what a joke). And I think we all agree here that it must be done in a way that enhances the US economy, not handicaps it - such as cap and trade, or severely limiting domestic recovery efforts of fossil fuels of all stripes (oil, coal, etc). Come to think of it that seems to be Obama's new strategy - close GITMO and decide what to do with her terrorists AFTERWARDS. Curtail oil/coal production severely, and discover some new source AFTTERWARDS ... but I digress.
The observation of my post is that while US energy independence would be a huge step forward on a myriad of levels, including the eventual (Iran and the Saudis will take a year or more to blow through their billions) choking off of terrorists via the regimes that support them, whomever is the US president, British PM, Spanish PM et al, must all be prepared for the initial pangs of increased violence that will fill the vacuum left by their only export no longer being in demand. In other words the various petroleum based regimes that support terror will undoubtedly undergo even greater poverty, upheaval and violence before it shakes out into some sort of "new order" within their nation. And the West, especially the US, is sure to catch some of that flak as hate is directed more and more at us by the radical leaders that emerge. And you may say, well they're doing that now, and that's true. My point is that when they under go this "Great Depression on steroids" the friendly ears to this radicalism will swell exponentially, and we need to be prepared.
The sad truth is that the various sheiks and Near East regimes have not spent their petro dollars to create an economic infrastructure that can live on past a sudden evaporation in the demand for their chief (only) product. Thus whatever economic stability - pick your petro country: Arabia, Iran, even Egypt - enjoy currently, will not survive. And in any sudden economic crisis the potential for violence is readily available. A "post oil" world, combined with the Islamic tendencies towards violence, and the large populations of peoples that will turn to their religion as a refuge from unprecedented poverty, even for them, is something the US should readily plan for. The side effects of a devastating loss in petro dollars will not fade quietly into the night.
Again, energy independence would be without question a monumental enhancement of our national security, one which I strongly advocate, but no one should be surprised at the increase in terror activity as the initial results of a post-petro world hit the Middle East. We would have to careful not to allow a dozen Saddams or Ahmedenajad's to emerge in those states currently labeled as "friendly"- Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Pakistan etc, etc.
And come to think of it, as I now text here with an "at work" Jambo during the last portion of this post's composition, it occurs to me that neither Russia nor China could allow us the strategic advantage of being energy independent. They would almost certainly go after domestic supplies in an unprecedented way which at best will be the final death knell in the Mid East petro based economies; and at worse, knowing the Ruskies, they'll invade Persia or another petro-enemy of ours (surely not an ally like Kuwait) in order to ensure their own inexpensive flow.
Like I said . . . just some observations of the side effects. It's all academic anyway. The fastest conversion to anything resembling "energy independence" would be the aggressive recovery of domestic and oceanic oil, oil shale, coal, nuclear plants, and increased refineries. This will NEVER happen under an Obama administration or a Pelosi/Reid congress, NEVER. Some hydrogen maybe, but not of any significance. Natural gas still makes the greenies queasy and is no where in the new President's agenda because environmental fascists dominate the political fortunes of the Democrat Party, while simultaneously the GOP is too lilly livered to oppose the new "chic green" among the electorate . . . Al Gore equates the "non believers" (that very term should be a red flag) to Holocaust deniers and those that think the moon landing was staged. I heard him say so. THIS is the level of control the green movement has in 2009. Gore can trivialize the Holocaust and describe the those whom don't buy into man made global warming as conspiracy nuts and everyone just nods along. So unless some whiz kid out there invents some renewable energy source that's not on the radar right now or a conservative tidal wave sweeps into congress and the White House over the next 4 years (both seem unlikely as of now) this is all, in the truest sense of the expression, a pipe dream.
Now make no mistake, I agree on the need for energy independence. I think we all here see it as a vital national security issue (versus a "belief" in man's ability to affect the climate of a planet in catastrophic ways, what a joke). And I think we all agree here that it must be done in a way that enhances the US economy, not handicaps it - such as cap and trade, or severely limiting domestic recovery efforts of fossil fuels of all stripes (oil, coal, etc). Come to think of it that seems to be Obama's new strategy - close GITMO and decide what to do with her terrorists AFTERWARDS. Curtail oil/coal production severely, and discover some new source AFTTERWARDS ... but I digress.
The observation of my post is that while US energy independence would be a huge step forward on a myriad of levels, including the eventual (Iran and the Saudis will take a year or more to blow through their billions) choking off of terrorists via the regimes that support them, whomever is the US president, British PM, Spanish PM et al, must all be prepared for the initial pangs of increased violence that will fill the vacuum left by their only export no longer being in demand. In other words the various petroleum based regimes that support terror will undoubtedly undergo even greater poverty, upheaval and violence before it shakes out into some sort of "new order" within their nation. And the West, especially the US, is sure to catch some of that flak as hate is directed more and more at us by the radical leaders that emerge. And you may say, well they're doing that now, and that's true. My point is that when they under go this "Great Depression on steroids" the friendly ears to this radicalism will swell exponentially, and we need to be prepared.
The sad truth is that the various sheiks and Near East regimes have not spent their petro dollars to create an economic infrastructure that can live on past a sudden evaporation in the demand for their chief (only) product. Thus whatever economic stability - pick your petro country: Arabia, Iran, even Egypt - enjoy currently, will not survive. And in any sudden economic crisis the potential for violence is readily available. A "post oil" world, combined with the Islamic tendencies towards violence, and the large populations of peoples that will turn to their religion as a refuge from unprecedented poverty, even for them, is something the US should readily plan for. The side effects of a devastating loss in petro dollars will not fade quietly into the night.
Again, energy independence would be without question a monumental enhancement of our national security, one which I strongly advocate, but no one should be surprised at the increase in terror activity as the initial results of a post-petro world hit the Middle East. We would have to careful not to allow a dozen Saddams or Ahmedenajad's to emerge in those states currently labeled as "friendly"- Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Pakistan etc, etc.
And come to think of it, as I now text here with an "at work" Jambo during the last portion of this post's composition, it occurs to me that neither Russia nor China could allow us the strategic advantage of being energy independent. They would almost certainly go after domestic supplies in an unprecedented way which at best will be the final death knell in the Mid East petro based economies; and at worse, knowing the Ruskies, they'll invade Persia or another petro-enemy of ours (surely not an ally like Kuwait) in order to ensure their own inexpensive flow.
Like I said . . . just some observations of the side effects. It's all academic anyway. The fastest conversion to anything resembling "energy independence" would be the aggressive recovery of domestic and oceanic oil, oil shale, coal, nuclear plants, and increased refineries. This will NEVER happen under an Obama administration or a Pelosi/Reid congress, NEVER. Some hydrogen maybe, but not of any significance. Natural gas still makes the greenies queasy and is no where in the new President's agenda because environmental fascists dominate the political fortunes of the Democrat Party, while simultaneously the GOP is too lilly livered to oppose the new "chic green" among the electorate . . . Al Gore equates the "non believers" (that very term should be a red flag) to Holocaust deniers and those that think the moon landing was staged. I heard him say so. THIS is the level of control the green movement has in 2009. Gore can trivialize the Holocaust and describe the those whom don't buy into man made global warming as conspiracy nuts and everyone just nods along. So unless some whiz kid out there invents some renewable energy source that's not on the radar right now or a conservative tidal wave sweeps into congress and the White House over the next 4 years (both seem unlikely as of now) this is all, in the truest sense of the expression, a pipe dream.
Perfect on paper?
Remember a ways back when we were having the intense conversations about Communism, and how on paper it wasn't such a bad idea? I'll give you this, Ryan never thought that, but glancing at the first Soviet Constitution in 1917 it really didn't seem like it would become the scourge it became.
Teaching Sunday night CCD to my ninth graders about the Crusades, it came to me that Islam is the same way. Read about it and wow, doesn't seem all that bad at all. Five tenets, daily prayer, alms, hospitality to one's neighbor, the hadj, and the proclamation of faith and boom! Call me Akmed. Nowhere is there paradise and 72 virgins. Nowhere is there car bombs, personal explosive devices, IEDs and the like.
Dig a little bit and all of a sudden JIHAD itself takes on a much less sinister meaning. "Live the struggle," in literal terms, means living the faith every moment of every day.
A twist here and a tweak there and all of a sudden you have a holy war, promised paradise, the subjugation of women and the inherent and not just expected, but demanded inequality of society based on sex, race and religion. Some fire hot rhetoric and nineteen men are driving planes into buildings and a field in PA.
This came to me because we were having the conversation about our war on Islam and Titus made a very disturbing point. Is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim? One can point to Muslims in affluent societies and see a noticeable lack of suicide bombers and say, "Look Ma! Moderates!" Titus made the observation that it's the same Western spiritual malaise affecting Christianity, Judaism, pick your faith. By following the modern word(quite a few illiterates in there and not a lot of popular debate concerning faith interpretation)of Islamic faith, there is no moderation. The modern interpretation of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammad are clear concerning the conversion or conquest of one's neighbors: the modern version of JIHAD.
In this similarity to Communism we find historical stratagems for waging the current war. Reagan outspent the Soviets, effectively bankrupting a system that could not compete. Outspending the current terrorist or radical groups isn't an issue, but choking their funds are. Remove the economic fuel and the radical engine dies.
I'm not going to launch into my domestic energy agenda again, so breathe easy. But it is an accurate historical model and the key to victory is in front of us. Has been the whole time. Where do (or did) Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the regime of Saddam Hussein, pick your "bad" group, get their money from? What fueled and funded the radicals?
Teaching Sunday night CCD to my ninth graders about the Crusades, it came to me that Islam is the same way. Read about it and wow, doesn't seem all that bad at all. Five tenets, daily prayer, alms, hospitality to one's neighbor, the hadj, and the proclamation of faith and boom! Call me Akmed. Nowhere is there paradise and 72 virgins. Nowhere is there car bombs, personal explosive devices, IEDs and the like.
Dig a little bit and all of a sudden JIHAD itself takes on a much less sinister meaning. "Live the struggle," in literal terms, means living the faith every moment of every day.
A twist here and a tweak there and all of a sudden you have a holy war, promised paradise, the subjugation of women and the inherent and not just expected, but demanded inequality of society based on sex, race and religion. Some fire hot rhetoric and nineteen men are driving planes into buildings and a field in PA.
This came to me because we were having the conversation about our war on Islam and Titus made a very disturbing point. Is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim? One can point to Muslims in affluent societies and see a noticeable lack of suicide bombers and say, "Look Ma! Moderates!" Titus made the observation that it's the same Western spiritual malaise affecting Christianity, Judaism, pick your faith. By following the modern word(quite a few illiterates in there and not a lot of popular debate concerning faith interpretation)of Islamic faith, there is no moderation. The modern interpretation of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammad are clear concerning the conversion or conquest of one's neighbors: the modern version of JIHAD.
In this similarity to Communism we find historical stratagems for waging the current war. Reagan outspent the Soviets, effectively bankrupting a system that could not compete. Outspending the current terrorist or radical groups isn't an issue, but choking their funds are. Remove the economic fuel and the radical engine dies.
I'm not going to launch into my domestic energy agenda again, so breathe easy. But it is an accurate historical model and the key to victory is in front of us. Has been the whole time. Where do (or did) Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the regime of Saddam Hussein, pick your "bad" group, get their money from? What fueled and funded the radicals?
Friday, January 23, 2009
I simply can't resist...
You all know I'm no fan of the "cut-and-paste" habits some of our more illustrious members employ here at the bund {ahem}, but in this instance, I simply couldn't leave it to a link. This is FAR too good an essay to NOT share in its entirety. Thanks to the "punks" for sharing it with me...
The Real Che Guevara, by Humberto Fontova (December 1, 2005)
Mike Tyson used to end fights with his arms upraised in triumph. Then he got a Che Guevara tattoo. Now he ends fights on the ground, a bloodied mess, battered and bowed, pounded almost beyond recognition. Lennox Lewis didn't just defeat him, he stomped him. It was a hideous thing to watch, even if you loathe Mike Tyson.
Tyson was jinxed by that Che tattoo. There's no other explanation. Somebody should have enlightened mighty Mike about the real Che Guevara.
Che was hell on smiting his enemies, all right – thousands of them – but only when they were bound, gagged and blindfolded. I'm afraid the Boxing Federation doesn't allow that. In anything like a fair fight Che was consistently routed, stomped and humiliated.
Ineptitude in combat defined Che Guevara. In every conflict he was pounded like a gong. When he whimpered to his American-trained captors in Bolivia, "Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!" he had a point.
We blew it by not kidnapping him from the Bolivians in time and using him the way Luddendorff used Lenin in WWI. Recall that the Germans shipped Lenin through their lines into Russia "like a sealed bacillus" (in Churchill's phrase) to infect the Russian army, to demoralize and incapacitate it, thereby shutting down the Eastern front.
It worked like a charm. The mighty Che, airdropped into Vietnam's Central Highlands with bundles of his "Lessons in Guerrilla War" in October 1968, would have crippled the V.C. worse than 10 Operation Rolling Thunders.
We'd have had the boys home by Christmas. No Tet. No Cambodian invasion. Upon graduating from Che's Academy of Guerrilla War, the V.C. would have become black-Pajama'd Beavis and Butt-heads. In a month they'd all be bedraggled and lost, starving and bickering, enraging the peasants, blundering into ambush after ambush.
We'd have cleaned house in two months, maybe even without employing the firepower and cojones of Al "To Hell and Back" Gore.
Actually, I dream here. Halfway through the first page of Che's legendary book, the V.C. would have impaled Che on pungi sticks as a CIA agent – a very stupid one, trying a transparent ruse to get them all killed.
Cuban-American fighters who faced Che at the Bay of Pigs and later in the Congo still laugh. The Bay of Pigs invasion plan included a ruse where a little boat packing a huge fireworks show and tape recording of battle sounds landed in extreme western Cuba as a diversion.
Sure enough, the wily Che immediately recognized this as an Anzio-type "second front." He snapped on his holster, cocked his beret at just the right angle, scowled for the camera and rushed over with a few thousand troops. He spent the whole battle there. It was the only thing in the invasion that went according to plan.
Later, many of these Cuban-American BOP vets itched to get back into the fight (but with ammo and air cover this time). The CIA obliged and sent them with ex-marine Rip Robertson to the Congo in ‘65. There they linked up with the legendary mercenary "Mad Mike" Hoare and his "Wild Geese."
Here's Mike Hoare's opinion, after watching them in battle, of the men routinely smeared by the Beltway media as cheap Mafiosi, bumblers and cowards, of the outfit the Church Commission and Clinton regime disparaged and emasculated: "These Cuban-CIA men were as tough, dedicated and impetuous a group of soldiers as I've ever had the honor of commanding. Their leader [Rip Robertson] was the most extraordinary and dedicated soldier I've ever met."
Saved From Cannibals
Together Mad Mike, Rip and the Cubans made short work of the alternately Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila, who were murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony.
Forget Frank Church and the Clintonites. Ask the hundreds of Europeans rescued from butchery (literally!) by these men. You'll hear a different song, believe me. You can read about their exploits in Hoare's book, "Congo Mercenary," and in Enrique Ros' "Cubanos Combatientes" (sadly, available only in Spanish).
Kabila made Idi Amin look like Gandhi. Castro, itching to be rid of this nuisance, sent Che (code-named "Tatu") and a force of his rebel army "veterans" to help these cannibals. The Congolese reds, unfamiliar with Che's true record, accepted Tatu gratefully.
The masterful "Tatu's" first order of business was plotting an attack on a garrison guarding a hydroelectric plant in a place called Front Bendela on the Kimbi River in Eastern Congo. His masterstroke was to be an elaborate ambush of the garrison.
The wily Tatu was stealthily leading his force into position when they heard shots. Whoops! ... Hey?! WHAT THE?! Ambushers became ambushed – and by the same garrison he thought was guarding the plant. Che lost half his men and barely escaped with his life.
Some Ally.
His African allies started frowning a little more closely at Tatu's c.v. and asking a few questions. (But in Swahili, which he didn't understand.)
Thing was, any teen gang member in East L.A. or south Bronx has 10 times the battle experience and savvy of any of these strutting Fidelista "Comandantes." Imagine the Germans atop Monte Cassino outnumbering and outgunning the Allies 10 to 1 in early ‘44. Hell, they'd STILL be there. It was a defender's dream.
Well, the brilliant Tatu and his comandantes had that very set-up in a place called Fizi-Baraka in Eastern Congo for their second clash with the mad dogs of imperialism. Mad Mike and his CIA allies sized the place up and attacked. Within one day the mighty Che's entire force was scrambling away in panic, throwing away their arms, running and screaming like old ladies with rats running up their legs.
Teen ‘Rebels'
One of the most hilarious and enduring hoaxes of the 20th century was the "war" fought by dauntless Che and the Castro rebels against Batista. But I hear it was a kick – a fun way for adolescents to harass adults, loot, rustle a few cows, and play army on weekends with real guns, maybe even getting off a few shots, usually into the air.
What 17- or 18-year-old male could resist? Petty delinquency became not just altruism here, but downright heroism. How many punks get such a window of glory? Normally these stunts land you in reform school. In Cuba in 1958 it might get your picture in the New York Times:
"Comandante Humberto ‘El Guapo' Fontova shown here relaxing with a bottle of rum and a grateful senorita after smiting the Fascist hordes of the Tyrant Batista in the ferocious Battle of Santa Clara, described by senior correspondent Herbert Matthews as ‘bloodier than Stalingrad!'"
Here's an insider account of one such "battle," from "Comandante" William Morgan as recounted to Paul Bethel after the glorious victory. Bethel was press attaché in Cuba's U.S. Embassy in 1959. It's in Bethel's superb and meticulously researched book "The Losers":
"We had a helluva time, Paul! We used a short-wave radio to broadcast the battle. Eloy and I yelled fake battle commands into the mike while a few of the muchachos shot BARs and pistols into the air for the sound effects. We really whooped it up!"
Here's another insider account from Bethel's book about a "famous battle." This one features Che the Lionhearted himself and his invincible "Column" on their Long March through Las Villas province:
"Guevara's column shuffled right into the U.S. agricultural experimental station in Camaguey. Guevara asked manager Joe McGuire to have a man take a package to Batista's military commander in the city. The package contained $100,000 with a note. Guevara's men moved through the province almost within sight of uninterested Batista troops."
This was part of the famous "Battle of Santa Clara" where Che "Blood ‘n' Guts" Guevara earned his eternal fame. Skip Dave Barry one Sunday and instead read the New York Times version of this historic military engagement. You'll laugh louder. Here's the headline in that "Newspaper of Record" for Jan 4, 1959 (and, like Barry, I swear I'm not making this up):
"One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting! .... Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties! ... Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men!"
Funnier Than Geraldo
We laugh at Geraldo Rivera's buffooneries in Afghanistan. Hell, next to NYT reporters, Geraldo looks like Ernie Pyle.
To give them credit, most of Castro's comandantes knew their Batista war had been a gaudy clown show. After the glorious victory, they were content to run down and execute the few Batista men motivated enough to shoot back (most of these were of humble background), settle into the mansions stolen from Batistianos, and enjoy the rest of their booty.
Che's pathological power of self-delusion wouldn't allow him to do this. And he paid the price.
Statistically speaking, a nocturnal stroll through Central Park offers more peril than Castro's rebels faced from the dreaded army of the beastly Fulgencio Batista. According to Bethel, the U.S. Embassy was a little skeptical about all the battlefield bloodshed and heroics and investigated. They ran down every reliable lead and eyewitness account of what the New York Times called a "bloody civil war with thousands dead in single battles!"
They found that in the countryside, in those two years of "ferocious" battles, the total casualties on BOTH sides actually ran to 182. New Orleans has an annual murder rate DOUBLE that.
Alas, the Viet Cong took its lessons from guerrilla leaders who – get this, Che groupies – actually fought in a guerrilla war. Yes, where people shoot back and everything. Che eventually tried his hand at this novelty and ... well, we saw what happened. He was run out of Africa with his tail between his legs in months. Then in Bolivia he and his merry band of bumblers was betrayed, encircled and decimated in short order.
Dissed by Mao
Real guerrillas had Che's number. Mao refused to see him when he visited China. He had him cool his heels in a reception room for two hours, then stood him up. He knew. Che the Lionhearted's image is still ubiquitous on college campuses. But in the wrong places. He belongs in the marketing, PR, advertising – and especially – psychology departments. His lessons and history are fascinating and valuable, but only in light of Sigmund Freud or P.T. Barnum. One born every minute, Mr. Barnum? If only you'd lived to see the Che phenomenon. Actually, 10 are born every second.
Here's a "guerrilla hero" who in real life never fought in a guerrilla war. When he finally brushed up against one, he was routed.
Here's a cold-blooded murderer who executed thousands without trial, who claimed that judicial evidence was an "unnecessary bourgeois detail," who stressed that "revolutionaries must become cold-killing machines motivated by pure hate," who stayed up till dawn for months at a time signing death warrants for innocent and honorable men, whose office in La Cabana had a window where he could watch the executions – and today his T-shirts adorn people who oppose capital punishment!
‘Greens' Love This Polluter
Here's communist Cuba's first "Minister of Industries," whose main slogan in 1960 was "Accelerated Industrialization!" Whose dream was converting Cuba (the hemisphere, actually) into a huge bureaucratic-industrial ant farm – and he's the poster boy for greens and anarchists who scream and rant against industrialization!
Here's a sniveling little suck-up, teacher's pet and momma's boy who was the constant pride of joy of his teacher (Alberto Bayo) and parents (the most obnoxious sort of Limousine Bolsheviks) – and he's idolized by millionaire delinquents such as Rage Against the Machine!
Here's a humorless teetotaler, a plodding paper-pusher, a notorious killjoy and all-around fuddy-duddy – and you see his T-shirt on MTV's Spring Break revelers!
Perhaps competent psychologists (if any exist) will explain this some day.
Che excelled in one thing: mass murder of defenseless men. He was a Stalinist to the core, a plodding bureaucrat and a calm, cold-blooded – but again, never in actual battle – killer. And there was an actual method to this murderous madness.
Recall that in 1940 Stalin's commissars rounded up the Polish officer corps, herded them into the Katyn Forest and slaughtered them to a man. Stalin didn't want any Polish contras messing up his plans. These officers would have led them. So his men dug a huge mass grave and lined up the Polish officers. The Russian pistol barrels went up against the backs of the necks:
POW! ... Thump. Fifteen thousand shots later the deed was done and the dirt replaced. Any contra problem was nipped in the bud.
Che followed suit in Cuba. As a communist flunky in Guatemala he'd seen the Guatemalan officer corps rise up against the communist Arbenz government in ‘54. (And you pinko professors, please stifle the noise about Arbenz as a harmless "social democrat" and "nationalist" victimized by the fiendish United Fruit Co., OK? When ousted, Arbenz sought refuge in Czechoslovakia, not Sweden.)
Beloved Mass Murderer
Anyway, Che didn't want a repeat in Cuba. Upon entering Havana in January ‘59 he started rounding up all army officers. Then – FUEGO!! – his firing squads got busy. Real busy. By his own count, Che sent 2,500 men to "the wall."
The "Cuban Katyn," I call this slaughter. The reds called these executed men "war criminals" and the Beltway press naturally parroted the charge. Nothing new there.
The New York Times' (Pulitzer Prize-winning, no less) reporter Walter Duranty had parroted Stalin and Beria's charges against the victims of the 1930s show trials, too. Later, they, along with Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill, labeled Nicaragua's contras "war criminals." But today Nicaragua is free because of them.
Che's true legacy is simply one of terror and murder. That dreaded midnight knock. Wives and daughters screaming in rage and panic as Che's goons drag off their dads and husbands – that's the real Che legacy.
Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers clubbed with rifle butts outside La Cabana as Che's firing squads murder their dads and sons inside – that's the real Che legacy.
Thousands of heroes yelling "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Christo Rey!" before firing squads of murderous drunks whom they'd have stomped in open battle – that's the real Che legacy.
Secret graves and crude boxes with bullet-riddled corpses delivered to ashen-faced loved ones – that's the real Che legacy.
And let's not forget the craven "Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you live than dead!" (Then why didn't he save his last bullet for himself?) Perhaps the defiant yells of the men he murdered actually affected Che the Lionhearted?
By 1960 he started ordering that his victims' mouths be taped shut. Perhaps there was a trace of human emotion in this icy dolt after all? Genuine bravery and defiance unnerved him.
When the wheels of justice finally turned, Che was revealed as unworthy to carry his victims' slop buckets. He learned nothing from their bravery. He could only beg for his life. So yes, the craven request when cornered in Bolivia is also the real Che legacy.
So anyway, friends, I hope you'll excuse all the champagne corks that popped in Cuban-American households back in October 1967 when we got the wonderful news. Yes, our own compatriots serving proudly in the U.S. Special Forces had helped track down the murderous, cowardly and epically stupid little weasel named Che Guevara in Bolivia. Then he got a major dose of his own medicine.
Justice has never been better served.
Humberto Fontova holds an M.A. in History from Tulane University.
The Real Che Guevara, by Humberto Fontova (December 1, 2005)
Mike Tyson used to end fights with his arms upraised in triumph. Then he got a Che Guevara tattoo. Now he ends fights on the ground, a bloodied mess, battered and bowed, pounded almost beyond recognition. Lennox Lewis didn't just defeat him, he stomped him. It was a hideous thing to watch, even if you loathe Mike Tyson.
Tyson was jinxed by that Che tattoo. There's no other explanation. Somebody should have enlightened mighty Mike about the real Che Guevara.
Che was hell on smiting his enemies, all right – thousands of them – but only when they were bound, gagged and blindfolded. I'm afraid the Boxing Federation doesn't allow that. In anything like a fair fight Che was consistently routed, stomped and humiliated.
Ineptitude in combat defined Che Guevara. In every conflict he was pounded like a gong. When he whimpered to his American-trained captors in Bolivia, "Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!" he had a point.
We blew it by not kidnapping him from the Bolivians in time and using him the way Luddendorff used Lenin in WWI. Recall that the Germans shipped Lenin through their lines into Russia "like a sealed bacillus" (in Churchill's phrase) to infect the Russian army, to demoralize and incapacitate it, thereby shutting down the Eastern front.
It worked like a charm. The mighty Che, airdropped into Vietnam's Central Highlands with bundles of his "Lessons in Guerrilla War" in October 1968, would have crippled the V.C. worse than 10 Operation Rolling Thunders.
We'd have had the boys home by Christmas. No Tet. No Cambodian invasion. Upon graduating from Che's Academy of Guerrilla War, the V.C. would have become black-Pajama'd Beavis and Butt-heads. In a month they'd all be bedraggled and lost, starving and bickering, enraging the peasants, blundering into ambush after ambush.
We'd have cleaned house in two months, maybe even without employing the firepower and cojones of Al "To Hell and Back" Gore.
Actually, I dream here. Halfway through the first page of Che's legendary book, the V.C. would have impaled Che on pungi sticks as a CIA agent – a very stupid one, trying a transparent ruse to get them all killed.
Cuban-American fighters who faced Che at the Bay of Pigs and later in the Congo still laugh. The Bay of Pigs invasion plan included a ruse where a little boat packing a huge fireworks show and tape recording of battle sounds landed in extreme western Cuba as a diversion.
Sure enough, the wily Che immediately recognized this as an Anzio-type "second front." He snapped on his holster, cocked his beret at just the right angle, scowled for the camera and rushed over with a few thousand troops. He spent the whole battle there. It was the only thing in the invasion that went according to plan.
Later, many of these Cuban-American BOP vets itched to get back into the fight (but with ammo and air cover this time). The CIA obliged and sent them with ex-marine Rip Robertson to the Congo in ‘65. There they linked up with the legendary mercenary "Mad Mike" Hoare and his "Wild Geese."
Here's Mike Hoare's opinion, after watching them in battle, of the men routinely smeared by the Beltway media as cheap Mafiosi, bumblers and cowards, of the outfit the Church Commission and Clinton regime disparaged and emasculated: "These Cuban-CIA men were as tough, dedicated and impetuous a group of soldiers as I've ever had the honor of commanding. Their leader [Rip Robertson] was the most extraordinary and dedicated soldier I've ever met."
Saved From Cannibals
Together Mad Mike, Rip and the Cubans made short work of the alternately Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila, who were murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony.
Forget Frank Church and the Clintonites. Ask the hundreds of Europeans rescued from butchery (literally!) by these men. You'll hear a different song, believe me. You can read about their exploits in Hoare's book, "Congo Mercenary," and in Enrique Ros' "Cubanos Combatientes" (sadly, available only in Spanish).
Kabila made Idi Amin look like Gandhi. Castro, itching to be rid of this nuisance, sent Che (code-named "Tatu") and a force of his rebel army "veterans" to help these cannibals. The Congolese reds, unfamiliar with Che's true record, accepted Tatu gratefully.
The masterful "Tatu's" first order of business was plotting an attack on a garrison guarding a hydroelectric plant in a place called Front Bendela on the Kimbi River in Eastern Congo. His masterstroke was to be an elaborate ambush of the garrison.
The wily Tatu was stealthily leading his force into position when they heard shots. Whoops! ... Hey?! WHAT THE?! Ambushers became ambushed – and by the same garrison he thought was guarding the plant. Che lost half his men and barely escaped with his life.
Some Ally.
His African allies started frowning a little more closely at Tatu's c.v. and asking a few questions. (But in Swahili, which he didn't understand.)
Thing was, any teen gang member in East L.A. or south Bronx has 10 times the battle experience and savvy of any of these strutting Fidelista "Comandantes." Imagine the Germans atop Monte Cassino outnumbering and outgunning the Allies 10 to 1 in early ‘44. Hell, they'd STILL be there. It was a defender's dream.
Well, the brilliant Tatu and his comandantes had that very set-up in a place called Fizi-Baraka in Eastern Congo for their second clash with the mad dogs of imperialism. Mad Mike and his CIA allies sized the place up and attacked. Within one day the mighty Che's entire force was scrambling away in panic, throwing away their arms, running and screaming like old ladies with rats running up their legs.
Teen ‘Rebels'
One of the most hilarious and enduring hoaxes of the 20th century was the "war" fought by dauntless Che and the Castro rebels against Batista. But I hear it was a kick – a fun way for adolescents to harass adults, loot, rustle a few cows, and play army on weekends with real guns, maybe even getting off a few shots, usually into the air.
What 17- or 18-year-old male could resist? Petty delinquency became not just altruism here, but downright heroism. How many punks get such a window of glory? Normally these stunts land you in reform school. In Cuba in 1958 it might get your picture in the New York Times:
"Comandante Humberto ‘El Guapo' Fontova shown here relaxing with a bottle of rum and a grateful senorita after smiting the Fascist hordes of the Tyrant Batista in the ferocious Battle of Santa Clara, described by senior correspondent Herbert Matthews as ‘bloodier than Stalingrad!'"
Here's an insider account of one such "battle," from "Comandante" William Morgan as recounted to Paul Bethel after the glorious victory. Bethel was press attaché in Cuba's U.S. Embassy in 1959. It's in Bethel's superb and meticulously researched book "The Losers":
"We had a helluva time, Paul! We used a short-wave radio to broadcast the battle. Eloy and I yelled fake battle commands into the mike while a few of the muchachos shot BARs and pistols into the air for the sound effects. We really whooped it up!"
Here's another insider account from Bethel's book about a "famous battle." This one features Che the Lionhearted himself and his invincible "Column" on their Long March through Las Villas province:
"Guevara's column shuffled right into the U.S. agricultural experimental station in Camaguey. Guevara asked manager Joe McGuire to have a man take a package to Batista's military commander in the city. The package contained $100,000 with a note. Guevara's men moved through the province almost within sight of uninterested Batista troops."
This was part of the famous "Battle of Santa Clara" where Che "Blood ‘n' Guts" Guevara earned his eternal fame. Skip Dave Barry one Sunday and instead read the New York Times version of this historic military engagement. You'll laugh louder. Here's the headline in that "Newspaper of Record" for Jan 4, 1959 (and, like Barry, I swear I'm not making this up):
"One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting! .... Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties! ... Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men!"
Funnier Than Geraldo
We laugh at Geraldo Rivera's buffooneries in Afghanistan. Hell, next to NYT reporters, Geraldo looks like Ernie Pyle.
To give them credit, most of Castro's comandantes knew their Batista war had been a gaudy clown show. After the glorious victory, they were content to run down and execute the few Batista men motivated enough to shoot back (most of these were of humble background), settle into the mansions stolen from Batistianos, and enjoy the rest of their booty.
Che's pathological power of self-delusion wouldn't allow him to do this. And he paid the price.
Statistically speaking, a nocturnal stroll through Central Park offers more peril than Castro's rebels faced from the dreaded army of the beastly Fulgencio Batista. According to Bethel, the U.S. Embassy was a little skeptical about all the battlefield bloodshed and heroics and investigated. They ran down every reliable lead and eyewitness account of what the New York Times called a "bloody civil war with thousands dead in single battles!"
They found that in the countryside, in those two years of "ferocious" battles, the total casualties on BOTH sides actually ran to 182. New Orleans has an annual murder rate DOUBLE that.
Alas, the Viet Cong took its lessons from guerrilla leaders who – get this, Che groupies – actually fought in a guerrilla war. Yes, where people shoot back and everything. Che eventually tried his hand at this novelty and ... well, we saw what happened. He was run out of Africa with his tail between his legs in months. Then in Bolivia he and his merry band of bumblers was betrayed, encircled and decimated in short order.
Dissed by Mao
Real guerrillas had Che's number. Mao refused to see him when he visited China. He had him cool his heels in a reception room for two hours, then stood him up. He knew. Che the Lionhearted's image is still ubiquitous on college campuses. But in the wrong places. He belongs in the marketing, PR, advertising – and especially – psychology departments. His lessons and history are fascinating and valuable, but only in light of Sigmund Freud or P.T. Barnum. One born every minute, Mr. Barnum? If only you'd lived to see the Che phenomenon. Actually, 10 are born every second.
Here's a "guerrilla hero" who in real life never fought in a guerrilla war. When he finally brushed up against one, he was routed.
Here's a cold-blooded murderer who executed thousands without trial, who claimed that judicial evidence was an "unnecessary bourgeois detail," who stressed that "revolutionaries must become cold-killing machines motivated by pure hate," who stayed up till dawn for months at a time signing death warrants for innocent and honorable men, whose office in La Cabana had a window where he could watch the executions – and today his T-shirts adorn people who oppose capital punishment!
‘Greens' Love This Polluter
Here's communist Cuba's first "Minister of Industries," whose main slogan in 1960 was "Accelerated Industrialization!" Whose dream was converting Cuba (the hemisphere, actually) into a huge bureaucratic-industrial ant farm – and he's the poster boy for greens and anarchists who scream and rant against industrialization!
Here's a sniveling little suck-up, teacher's pet and momma's boy who was the constant pride of joy of his teacher (Alberto Bayo) and parents (the most obnoxious sort of Limousine Bolsheviks) – and he's idolized by millionaire delinquents such as Rage Against the Machine!
Here's a humorless teetotaler, a plodding paper-pusher, a notorious killjoy and all-around fuddy-duddy – and you see his T-shirt on MTV's Spring Break revelers!
Perhaps competent psychologists (if any exist) will explain this some day.
Che excelled in one thing: mass murder of defenseless men. He was a Stalinist to the core, a plodding bureaucrat and a calm, cold-blooded – but again, never in actual battle – killer. And there was an actual method to this murderous madness.
Recall that in 1940 Stalin's commissars rounded up the Polish officer corps, herded them into the Katyn Forest and slaughtered them to a man. Stalin didn't want any Polish contras messing up his plans. These officers would have led them. So his men dug a huge mass grave and lined up the Polish officers. The Russian pistol barrels went up against the backs of the necks:
POW! ... Thump. Fifteen thousand shots later the deed was done and the dirt replaced. Any contra problem was nipped in the bud.
Che followed suit in Cuba. As a communist flunky in Guatemala he'd seen the Guatemalan officer corps rise up against the communist Arbenz government in ‘54. (And you pinko professors, please stifle the noise about Arbenz as a harmless "social democrat" and "nationalist" victimized by the fiendish United Fruit Co., OK? When ousted, Arbenz sought refuge in Czechoslovakia, not Sweden.)
Beloved Mass Murderer
Anyway, Che didn't want a repeat in Cuba. Upon entering Havana in January ‘59 he started rounding up all army officers. Then – FUEGO!! – his firing squads got busy. Real busy. By his own count, Che sent 2,500 men to "the wall."
The "Cuban Katyn," I call this slaughter. The reds called these executed men "war criminals" and the Beltway press naturally parroted the charge. Nothing new there.
The New York Times' (Pulitzer Prize-winning, no less) reporter Walter Duranty had parroted Stalin and Beria's charges against the victims of the 1930s show trials, too. Later, they, along with Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill, labeled Nicaragua's contras "war criminals." But today Nicaragua is free because of them.
Che's true legacy is simply one of terror and murder. That dreaded midnight knock. Wives and daughters screaming in rage and panic as Che's goons drag off their dads and husbands – that's the real Che legacy.
Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers clubbed with rifle butts outside La Cabana as Che's firing squads murder their dads and sons inside – that's the real Che legacy.
Thousands of heroes yelling "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Christo Rey!" before firing squads of murderous drunks whom they'd have stomped in open battle – that's the real Che legacy.
Secret graves and crude boxes with bullet-riddled corpses delivered to ashen-faced loved ones – that's the real Che legacy.
And let's not forget the craven "Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you live than dead!" (Then why didn't he save his last bullet for himself?) Perhaps the defiant yells of the men he murdered actually affected Che the Lionhearted?
By 1960 he started ordering that his victims' mouths be taped shut. Perhaps there was a trace of human emotion in this icy dolt after all? Genuine bravery and defiance unnerved him.
When the wheels of justice finally turned, Che was revealed as unworthy to carry his victims' slop buckets. He learned nothing from their bravery. He could only beg for his life. So yes, the craven request when cornered in Bolivia is also the real Che legacy.
So anyway, friends, I hope you'll excuse all the champagne corks that popped in Cuban-American households back in October 1967 when we got the wonderful news. Yes, our own compatriots serving proudly in the U.S. Special Forces had helped track down the murderous, cowardly and epically stupid little weasel named Che Guevara in Bolivia. Then he got a major dose of his own medicine.
Justice has never been better served.
Humberto Fontova holds an M.A. in History from Tulane University.
I'm in.
But . . . I may be a little late . . . unless I can hitch a ride with one of those F-16's screaming across the top of my truck.
And nice move on GITMO.
And nice move on GITMO.
For all you "Space Losers"...
I'm taking off work early tomorrow, and Mick and I are heading for an evening of serious drinking at our favorite local pub. Pint after delicious pint... good talk with good friends... that is what life is all about.
No driving, no dancing, no fussing with the women-folk... just good, old-fashioned beer-tipping fun.
You guys in?
No driving, no dancing, no fussing with the women-folk... just good, old-fashioned beer-tipping fun.
You guys in?
My take on Gitmo...
{applause for Baddboy}
In this regard, I am a pragmatist. Once we have "detained" someone as an enemy combatant, I DO feel that the "rule of law" limits what we can and cannot subject the detainee to. I'm not re-opening the "torture debate" (God, PLEASE... I'm really not!), I'm simply being honest.
But, as a pragmatist, I maintain now, as I always have, that the "out" the military might want to use is whether we "detain" anyone in the first place. If we are LOOKING for intel, then we LOOK to detain someone. If we are simply cleaning up after a mortar attack or have found a cache of material and men... then the enemy combatants that want to be "detained" can see what an out-right surrender will buy them. Otherwise... let them die for Allah. No one argues the incarceration of a corpse.
In this regard, I am a pragmatist. Once we have "detained" someone as an enemy combatant, I DO feel that the "rule of law" limits what we can and cannot subject the detainee to. I'm not re-opening the "torture debate" (God, PLEASE... I'm really not!), I'm simply being honest.
But, as a pragmatist, I maintain now, as I always have, that the "out" the military might want to use is whether we "detain" anyone in the first place. If we are LOOKING for intel, then we LOOK to detain someone. If we are simply cleaning up after a mortar attack or have found a cache of material and men... then the enemy combatants that want to be "detained" can see what an out-right surrender will buy them. Otherwise... let them die for Allah. No one argues the incarceration of a corpse.
Possible Gitmo solutions
Well I have been pondering this Gitmo fiasco and I think I have several possible solutions.
1. Change the rules of engagement. We will close Gitmo, finish the legal aspects in regards to those we already are holding and then announce to the world that since we will no longer be housing terrorists as prisoners we will no longer be taking prisoners. Anyone who makes threats to our country or its citizens will be killed...period.
2. Release them all, to Pakistan. With a 30,000 troop surge to Afghanistan we'll get another shot at them.
3. Reopen Alcatraz as a military prison. It is American soil. It would require alot of work to get it in shape again but B. Hussein Obama could figure that into his economic stimulus package.
just a couple of thoughts
1. Change the rules of engagement. We will close Gitmo, finish the legal aspects in regards to those we already are holding and then announce to the world that since we will no longer be housing terrorists as prisoners we will no longer be taking prisoners. Anyone who makes threats to our country or its citizens will be killed...period.
2. Release them all, to Pakistan. With a 30,000 troop surge to Afghanistan we'll get another shot at them.
3. Reopen Alcatraz as a military prison. It is American soil. It would require alot of work to get it in shape again but B. Hussein Obama could figure that into his economic stimulus package.
just a couple of thoughts
Fine...
I'll drop it, but only AFTER I show the world (if not Ryan, who doesn't read what I post anyway) that my facts STAND.
You quoted: "In June 1937, Roosevelt severely curtailed federal spending. Simultaneously, the new Social Security taxes began to bite into paychecks. By late summer these deflationary developments had precipitated an economic downturn at least as bad as 1929. Within months, more then 2 million workers lost their jobs. The "Roosevelt Recession" rubbed salt into the president's already smarting political wounds ..."
I'm sure the author of this ONE text book is every bit the academic ubermensch you claim he is. I define a "depression" as four fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. He obviously uses another definition, because the "recession" he is describing is the same "depression" I am describing in 1937. Four quarters of negative economic growth (GDP) from spring of '37 to the end of summer in '38. This is the ONLY downturn in the economy that ANYONE can show me from 1934 to 1940. The only one. All other years show SUBSTANTIAL and MEASURABLE economic growth each and every fiscal quarter, AND an improving (meaning falling) unemployment rate.
Prior to 1934, the fall was steady and complete from the autumn of 1929 to the spring of 1934. This was the Depression of '29, the "Big Crash". Within the decade we are discussing, there are NO other market drops or periods of negative growth. NONE.
Your second quotation: "The New Deal in its six year life composed a stunning record. To be sure, not all New Deal programs succeeded. Nor did the New Deal achieve full recovery."
How is this any different than what I have been saying all along? Sounds like this author agrees with me in as much as the New Deal CONTRIBUTED to the recovery more than it detracted. I have never claimed that the New Deal (as defined by FDR's policies throughout the 1930's) ALONE ended the era of the Great Depression, nor have I not admitted that facets of the New Deal failed utterly. It wasn't until 1943 that unemployment was LOWER than it had been before 1929... so FDR's policies failed in that regard.
So, you have made your case that the New Deal "equals" failure by quoting two text books... one of which supports MY claim that the New Deal contributed to the recovery, but wasn't the sole and only cause of the recovery and maintained programs that failed to fix what was wrong, at least initially.
To support my claim, I have linked no less than six online academic sources and cut-and-pasted numerous bits... but in the interest of fairness, I'll link the sources that support my claims, in addition to links I have already provided.
AGAIN, my claim is that the SOME New Deal programs of FDR from 1933 to 1939 DID contribute to the economic recovery, and that other facets of the programs and policies failed to solve the entire crisis, mainly unemployment. This, by its very definition, means the New Deal policies of FDR during the 1930's was NOT a complete success... but was certainly NOT a failure, as Ryan contends via his two text books and years of anti-Democrat indoctrination.
A great resource HERE, which I used several times.
The BLS website has this .PDF which shows (in Table 2) the spending habits of a broad spectrum of Americans from 1901 to 1987.
My unemployment figures (which Ryan questioned) were from the BLS
A speech by Ben Bernanke on the success of taking the US Dollar off the gold standard during the New Deal
A HUGE .PDF about the Hoover years of the Depression... use the Table of Contents to navigate!
The Fed's BEST engine for finding old data from the 30's... HERE
You quoted: "In June 1937, Roosevelt severely curtailed federal spending. Simultaneously, the new Social Security taxes began to bite into paychecks. By late summer these deflationary developments had precipitated an economic downturn at least as bad as 1929. Within months, more then 2 million workers lost their jobs. The "Roosevelt Recession" rubbed salt into the president's already smarting political wounds ..."
I'm sure the author of this ONE text book is every bit the academic ubermensch you claim he is. I define a "depression" as four fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. He obviously uses another definition, because the "recession" he is describing is the same "depression" I am describing in 1937. Four quarters of negative economic growth (GDP) from spring of '37 to the end of summer in '38. This is the ONLY downturn in the economy that ANYONE can show me from 1934 to 1940. The only one. All other years show SUBSTANTIAL and MEASURABLE economic growth each and every fiscal quarter, AND an improving (meaning falling) unemployment rate.
Prior to 1934, the fall was steady and complete from the autumn of 1929 to the spring of 1934. This was the Depression of '29, the "Big Crash". Within the decade we are discussing, there are NO other market drops or periods of negative growth. NONE.
Your second quotation: "The New Deal in its six year life composed a stunning record. To be sure, not all New Deal programs succeeded. Nor did the New Deal achieve full recovery."
How is this any different than what I have been saying all along? Sounds like this author agrees with me in as much as the New Deal CONTRIBUTED to the recovery more than it detracted. I have never claimed that the New Deal (as defined by FDR's policies throughout the 1930's) ALONE ended the era of the Great Depression, nor have I not admitted that facets of the New Deal failed utterly. It wasn't until 1943 that unemployment was LOWER than it had been before 1929... so FDR's policies failed in that regard.
So, you have made your case that the New Deal "equals" failure by quoting two text books... one of which supports MY claim that the New Deal contributed to the recovery, but wasn't the sole and only cause of the recovery and maintained programs that failed to fix what was wrong, at least initially.
To support my claim, I have linked no less than six online academic sources and cut-and-pasted numerous bits... but in the interest of fairness, I'll link the sources that support my claims, in addition to links I have already provided.
AGAIN, my claim is that the SOME New Deal programs of FDR from 1933 to 1939 DID contribute to the economic recovery, and that other facets of the programs and policies failed to solve the entire crisis, mainly unemployment. This, by its very definition, means the New Deal policies of FDR during the 1930's was NOT a complete success... but was certainly NOT a failure, as Ryan contends via his two text books and years of anti-Democrat indoctrination.
A great resource HERE, which I used several times.
The BLS website has this .PDF which shows (in Table 2) the spending habits of a broad spectrum of Americans from 1901 to 1987.
My unemployment figures (which Ryan questioned) were from the BLS
A speech by Ben Bernanke on the success of taking the US Dollar off the gold standard during the New Deal
A HUGE .PDF about the Hoover years of the Depression... use the Table of Contents to navigate!
The Fed's BEST engine for finding old data from the 30's... HERE
Yes, you did.
But I don't know what happened to it! I clicked "publish." Whomever it was, it wasn't Sammy. The anonymous author noted that he was impressed with how eloquently we debated the New Deal, went on to say he would comment further but didn't think he/she (to be PC) could be quite so eloquent, as he felt he wasn't as informed as us on the issue (like I said, NOT Sammy). Anonymous also went on to thank us for our New Deal debate, as they found it "informative." Damn shame it got eaten Jambo, they concluded by saying they agreed with YOU.
Did I miss an annonymous post?
I gave our old friend Sammy the path to the Bund. He was asking about you guys. Whether or not he posts...
When did he get his citizenship? He was born in Addas Abbaba, Ethiopia. The man knows his American history. I told him the best way to catch up with ankle biter Ryan and Dillman Titus was the Bund.
I'm sorry I brought up New Deal again. Damn.
When did he get his citizenship? He was born in Addas Abbaba, Ethiopia. The man knows his American history. I told him the best way to catch up with ankle biter Ryan and Dillman Titus was the Bund.
I'm sorry I brought up New Deal again. Damn.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Let me be more direct.
I want you to understand something, and any "anonymous" commentors (thanks by the way for taking the time to read our musings), the following is absolute hog wash. You wrote:
"There were TWO depressions between 1929 and 1939. TWO. '29 to '33 and '37 to '38. that's it. No recessions."
"Now, with the economy hitting it's rock-bottom in 1933, and EVERY SINGLE economic indicator (low prime interest rate, low inflation rate, rising GDP, the dollar getting stronger every day, and unemployment FALLING at a steady and measurable rate) showing the "Great Depression" to have ended by 1939, a full TWO YEARS before Pearl Harbor..."
What do you think happens when I compose a post? That I toss bones on the floor, chant to the blog Gods and "see" what they have to say about the New Deal? This matter is settled among responsible recitations of history.
This is a graduate level researchers reference book:
The Presidents, Second Edition, Editor Henry F. Graff; MACMILLAN LIBRARY REFERENCE USA, Copyright 1997, contributed by historians: Timothy J. DeWerff, Steven A. Sayer, John Marcus, Sarah Valdez. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catolog-in-Publication, ISBN # 0-684-80551-0
PAGE 433 (just after the "court packing" fiasco)
"The worst was yet to come. The economy had improved slowly but perceptibly since 1933, making especially vigorous gains after 1935 under the stimuli of relief expenditures and the one-time only payment of of the budget busting veterans' bonus, which passed over Roosevelt's veto in January 1936. Incredibly, this display of economic vitality raised the dread specter of inflation in many influential minds, including that of the president. In June 1937, Roosevelt severely curtailed federal spending. Simultaneously, the new Social Security taxes began to bite into paychecks. By late summer these deflationary developments had precipitated an economic downturn at least as bad as 1929. Within months, more then 2 million workers lost their jobs. The "Roosevelt Recession" rubbed salt into the president's already smarting political wounds ..."
PAGE 434
"Roosevelt did manage to push through Congress in June, 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act, which defined a federally guaranteed minimum wage, maximum work week, and outlawed child labor. By then the the conservative coalition had crystallized, and even members of the president's own party were openly flouting his will. Roosevelt tried to purge conservatives from his party in the 1938 primary season, but failed utterly. In the congressional elections in November, Republicans won their first gains since 1928, picking up eight seats in the Senate and seventy-nine seats in the House.
With that, the New Deal was effectively ended. It had carried the country, however minimally, through a dark hour. It left a large and lasting legacy of major institutional reforms. Added together these reforms embodied the various , often contradictory pressures of the decade - particularly those still pulsing in the still disparate Democrat Party - rather then a coherent expression of any particular ideology. The problem of the Great Depression, the problems that had been the midwife and companion to these reforms, was never solved by the New Deal. Roosevelt's principle achievement was political, not economic. He had enabled his countrymen to keep their heads while peoples all about them in the world were losing theirs. He had, against not inconsiderable odds, maintained social peace in a depressed and sometimes desperate America."
This is a scholarly US history book that spans colonial America to Bill Clinton, assigned to me by the chair of USM's History Department (and I promise you, he HATED G. W. Bush, and we had an antagonistic, yet friendly relationship - wanna guess why? But a good guy. I got an A in his Nazi Germany class):
The Enduring Vision, Fourth Edition: A History of the American People. Houghton Mifflin Company Copyright 2000 ISBN # 0-395-96077-0. Library of Congress Catalog Number: 99-72038. By: Paul S. Boyer, University of Winsconsin; Clifford E. Clark Jr, Carleton College; Joseph F. Kett, University of Virginia; Neal Salisbury, Smith College; Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire; Nancy Woloch, Barnard College.
From 2 different sections entitled "The Roosevelt Recession" and "The End of the New Deal" on pages 730, thru 732 respectively.
"As the Supreme Court fight ended, FDR faced a more serious crisis: after the improving in 1936 and early 1937, the economy again plunged ominously in August 1937. Industrial production slumped. Steel output sank from 80 percent to 19 percent. Bleak unemployment statistics again dominated the headlines: after dropping to around 7 million in early 1937, the jobless toll soared to 11 million in early 1938 - more than 20 percent of the workforce, the "Roosevelt Recession."
"Although Roosevelt campaigned actively in the midterm election of 1938, the Republicans gained heavily in the House and Senate and won a net thirteen governorships. Roosevelt also tried to purge several prominent anti-New Deal Democratic senators, but his major targets, including senators Walter George of Georgia, Ed Smith of South Carolina, and Millard Tydings of Maryland, all won renomination and went on to victory. Focusing on foreign affairs in his January 1939 State of the Union message, FDR proposed no new domestic measures and spoke merely of the need to "preserve our reforms." The New Deal was over."
"The New Deal in its six year life composed a stunning record. To be sure, not all New Deal programs succeeded. Nor did the New Deal achieve full recovery. As late as 1939, some 9.5 million Americans, or more than 17 percent of the labor force, were out of work. Only in 1943, as war plants boomed, did the nation finally achieve full employment."
Now look Titus, you can smirk about PhD's, and mention that nut from Colorado, fine, whatever. But let me be clear. These are but 2 of a cadre of history books I have which all mimic this sentiment above. Written by left leaning PhD's/collegiate instructors (as 90% of them are left leaning); employed at liberal Universities (I mean, Winsconsin, are you kidding?); prescribed to me at University by OTHER liberal professors, foot noted and source cited to death (undoubtedly works by other liberal professors, each one of them with "New Deal" in their title somewhere), so this is hardly the Mark Levine web page, ok. The bottom line is the historic consensus seems to me to be that the New Deal failed economically. NOW, I am sure that each and every one of these historians, and the professors that required me to read them have no problem with these passages because they all (these books) go on to say that FDR, as a president, has no equal in success - but because of the REFORMS (labor, etc), his innovative willingness to try anything, and the War, BUT NOT the economic impact of the New Deal. And I eluded to such in both of my last posts.
Look, I thought if you didn't believe me, you would believe them. You are wrong about there never being a recession in the 30's. You are wrong about unemployment being at 11% by 1939, it was almost double that (hell, even the History Channel special Jambo and I viewed, which he described as "fantastic", concurred with those numbers). You are wrong to portray a very slow, steady up tick of the GDP as a sign New Deal was working when there was a recession and depression as set backs, and the striking down as unconstitutional the NRA - the centerpiece of New Deal legislation. And you are wrong to make 1939 - a full two years before Pearl Harbor as you noted - out to be some "Boom time." It was not. Why on earth, if boom times were abound, did FDR's party lose so bad, and he portray a man so defeated domestically in his SoTU address of that same year? It just doesn't add up politically, and that's aside from the stark numbers quoted. The economy began to turn towards that boom time, and I stress BEGAN, with congress cutting corporate taxes (FINALLY), the initiation of Lend Lease, and culminated in the entry into WWII (read: the deficit spending war orders that provided the countless factory orders, which translated into jobs). Everyone worked. Because of rations and a virtual non consumer goods market (every factory was pumping out Kraut/Jap killing mechanisms of one sort or another), family savings soared. On the other side of the war the combination of a consumer goods conversion of the war times factories, the job rates that were maintained by them, combined with those savings, the GI Bill, and other pro growth measures, the US emerged into the boom times of the 1950's (and a baby boom I might add).
Take it or leave it, I'm getting too tired to maintain an argument of New Deal economic impact that 2/3rds of the original Bund members now embrace, and countless members of academia (left leaning no less) put forth as fact.
"There were TWO depressions between 1929 and 1939. TWO. '29 to '33 and '37 to '38. that's it. No recessions."
"Now, with the economy hitting it's rock-bottom in 1933, and EVERY SINGLE economic indicator (low prime interest rate, low inflation rate, rising GDP, the dollar getting stronger every day, and unemployment FALLING at a steady and measurable rate) showing the "Great Depression" to have ended by 1939, a full TWO YEARS before Pearl Harbor..."
What do you think happens when I compose a post? That I toss bones on the floor, chant to the blog Gods and "see" what they have to say about the New Deal? This matter is settled among responsible recitations of history.
This is a graduate level researchers reference book:
The Presidents, Second Edition, Editor Henry F. Graff; MACMILLAN LIBRARY REFERENCE USA, Copyright 1997, contributed by historians: Timothy J. DeWerff, Steven A. Sayer, John Marcus, Sarah Valdez. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catolog-in-Publication, ISBN # 0-684-80551-0
PAGE 433 (just after the "court packing" fiasco)
"The worst was yet to come. The economy had improved slowly but perceptibly since 1933, making especially vigorous gains after 1935 under the stimuli of relief expenditures and the one-time only payment of of the budget busting veterans' bonus, which passed over Roosevelt's veto in January 1936. Incredibly, this display of economic vitality raised the dread specter of inflation in many influential minds, including that of the president. In June 1937, Roosevelt severely curtailed federal spending. Simultaneously, the new Social Security taxes began to bite into paychecks. By late summer these deflationary developments had precipitated an economic downturn at least as bad as 1929. Within months, more then 2 million workers lost their jobs. The "Roosevelt Recession" rubbed salt into the president's already smarting political wounds ..."
PAGE 434
"Roosevelt did manage to push through Congress in June, 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act, which defined a federally guaranteed minimum wage, maximum work week, and outlawed child labor. By then the the conservative coalition had crystallized, and even members of the president's own party were openly flouting his will. Roosevelt tried to purge conservatives from his party in the 1938 primary season, but failed utterly. In the congressional elections in November, Republicans won their first gains since 1928, picking up eight seats in the Senate and seventy-nine seats in the House.
With that, the New Deal was effectively ended. It had carried the country, however minimally, through a dark hour. It left a large and lasting legacy of major institutional reforms. Added together these reforms embodied the various , often contradictory pressures of the decade - particularly those still pulsing in the still disparate Democrat Party - rather then a coherent expression of any particular ideology. The problem of the Great Depression, the problems that had been the midwife and companion to these reforms, was never solved by the New Deal. Roosevelt's principle achievement was political, not economic. He had enabled his countrymen to keep their heads while peoples all about them in the world were losing theirs. He had, against not inconsiderable odds, maintained social peace in a depressed and sometimes desperate America."
This is a scholarly US history book that spans colonial America to Bill Clinton, assigned to me by the chair of USM's History Department (and I promise you, he HATED G. W. Bush, and we had an antagonistic, yet friendly relationship - wanna guess why? But a good guy. I got an A in his Nazi Germany class):
The Enduring Vision, Fourth Edition: A History of the American People. Houghton Mifflin Company Copyright 2000 ISBN # 0-395-96077-0. Library of Congress Catalog Number: 99-72038. By: Paul S. Boyer, University of Winsconsin; Clifford E. Clark Jr, Carleton College; Joseph F. Kett, University of Virginia; Neal Salisbury, Smith College; Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire; Nancy Woloch, Barnard College.
From 2 different sections entitled "The Roosevelt Recession" and "The End of the New Deal" on pages 730, thru 732 respectively.
"As the Supreme Court fight ended, FDR faced a more serious crisis: after the improving in 1936 and early 1937, the economy again plunged ominously in August 1937. Industrial production slumped. Steel output sank from 80 percent to 19 percent. Bleak unemployment statistics again dominated the headlines: after dropping to around 7 million in early 1937, the jobless toll soared to 11 million in early 1938 - more than 20 percent of the workforce, the "Roosevelt Recession."
"Although Roosevelt campaigned actively in the midterm election of 1938, the Republicans gained heavily in the House and Senate and won a net thirteen governorships. Roosevelt also tried to purge several prominent anti-New Deal Democratic senators, but his major targets, including senators Walter George of Georgia, Ed Smith of South Carolina, and Millard Tydings of Maryland, all won renomination and went on to victory. Focusing on foreign affairs in his January 1939 State of the Union message, FDR proposed no new domestic measures and spoke merely of the need to "preserve our reforms." The New Deal was over."
"The New Deal in its six year life composed a stunning record. To be sure, not all New Deal programs succeeded. Nor did the New Deal achieve full recovery. As late as 1939, some 9.5 million Americans, or more than 17 percent of the labor force, were out of work. Only in 1943, as war plants boomed, did the nation finally achieve full employment."
Now look Titus, you can smirk about PhD's, and mention that nut from Colorado, fine, whatever. But let me be clear. These are but 2 of a cadre of history books I have which all mimic this sentiment above. Written by left leaning PhD's/collegiate instructors (as 90% of them are left leaning); employed at liberal Universities (I mean, Winsconsin, are you kidding?); prescribed to me at University by OTHER liberal professors, foot noted and source cited to death (undoubtedly works by other liberal professors, each one of them with "New Deal" in their title somewhere), so this is hardly the Mark Levine web page, ok. The bottom line is the historic consensus seems to me to be that the New Deal failed economically. NOW, I am sure that each and every one of these historians, and the professors that required me to read them have no problem with these passages because they all (these books) go on to say that FDR, as a president, has no equal in success - but because of the REFORMS (labor, etc), his innovative willingness to try anything, and the War, BUT NOT the economic impact of the New Deal. And I eluded to such in both of my last posts.
Look, I thought if you didn't believe me, you would believe them. You are wrong about there never being a recession in the 30's. You are wrong about unemployment being at 11% by 1939, it was almost double that (hell, even the History Channel special Jambo and I viewed, which he described as "fantastic", concurred with those numbers). You are wrong to portray a very slow, steady up tick of the GDP as a sign New Deal was working when there was a recession and depression as set backs, and the striking down as unconstitutional the NRA - the centerpiece of New Deal legislation. And you are wrong to make 1939 - a full two years before Pearl Harbor as you noted - out to be some "Boom time." It was not. Why on earth, if boom times were abound, did FDR's party lose so bad, and he portray a man so defeated domestically in his SoTU address of that same year? It just doesn't add up politically, and that's aside from the stark numbers quoted. The economy began to turn towards that boom time, and I stress BEGAN, with congress cutting corporate taxes (FINALLY), the initiation of Lend Lease, and culminated in the entry into WWII (read: the deficit spending war orders that provided the countless factory orders, which translated into jobs). Everyone worked. Because of rations and a virtual non consumer goods market (every factory was pumping out Kraut/Jap killing mechanisms of one sort or another), family savings soared. On the other side of the war the combination of a consumer goods conversion of the war times factories, the job rates that were maintained by them, combined with those savings, the GI Bill, and other pro growth measures, the US emerged into the boom times of the 1950's (and a baby boom I might add).
Take it or leave it, I'm getting too tired to maintain an argument of New Deal economic impact that 2/3rds of the original Bund members now embrace, and countless members of academia (left leaning no less) put forth as fact.
What the hell???
Dude, what do you think the "New Deal" was?
Roosevelt promised a "new deal" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, IL on July 2nd, 1932. It was his name for his "promises" to work to alleviate the pains of the depression of '29, which was rapidly reaching its lowest point. These promises included new jobs for millions, new opportunities for business, and a new level of trust between Government and the private sector.
Hell YES I think the repeal of the Volstead Act was New Deal legislation! Ending 13 years of useless government regulation on morality that crippled an HUGE section of our national economy and forced more than a million people and hundreds of successful businesses into bankruptcy... how much more "New Deal" can you get than that? I don't care by what process the change was made... FDR initiated it, and it was part of his election campaign PROMISES, so that, by its very definition, makes it NEW DEAL. Sheesh.
You wrote: "DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. Now first we must quickly discern something (again, for I have done this at nauseam). The two depressions that hit in the 30's DO NOT by themselves define the historical term "The Great Depression." Ok? The Great Depression includes those two depressions, at least 2 recessions (if I remember correctly from class), the turbulent stock market including high value wipe outs, and probably THE MOST significant in terms of effecting everyday persons living in that era - UNEMPLOYMENT."
Ad nauseum, indeed. We HAVE been over this many time before, my friend... I thought it amply covered. However...
There were TWO depressions between 1929 and 1939. TWO. '29 to '33 and '37 to '38. that's it. No recessions. Why do I say this? Because the GDP (the LARGEST indicator of a recession/depression) did nothing but go UP from '33 to '37, and from '38 to '40. Only UP. In fact, by the spring of 1937, the GDP was HIGHER than it had been in 1929 before the Crash! ALL ECONOMIC INDICATORS were higher than their '29 levels except unemployment, and it was at its lowest since '33 (14%). So, by 1939, the US economy was BIGGER and growing FASTER than it had been before the "Black Tuesday" crash of '29. The ONLY difference was that by 1939, the nations still had an 11% unemployment rate, and it had been as low as 3.3% in 1929.
Now, with the economy hitting it's rock-bottom in 1933, and EVERY SINGLE economic indicator (low prime interest rate, low inflation rate, rising GDP, the dollar getting stronger every day, and unemployment FALLING at a steady and measurable rate) showing the "Great Depression" to have ended by 1939, a full TWO YEARS before Pearl Harbor... you are STILL going to tell me that the policies and programs instituted by the Roosevelt Administrations that have become known as the New Deal had NOTHING to do with the recovery... and that NOTHING got better until the US was ass-deep in WWII and cranking out Shermans and B-17 like they were going out of style? Who is making the stretch now?
I'm so TIRED of hearing wanna-be conservative intellectuals (present company excluded... mostly) constantly referring to New Deal policies, especially FDR's policies, as "socialist". If FDR wanted to institute socialism in America, what better opportunity did he have than the chance to nationalize the banks, railroads, and industries that were CRASHING down around his ears? He RAN for office on the premise that "laissez faire" economic policies WERE NOT working for Hoover (and they weren't), so he instituted greater regulation and oversight... yes. But it was a far cry from socialism.
That aside... back to my main point.
NO ONE can say that the economy hadn't recovered all that it had lost EXCEPT in the realm of employment. So, what was it that kept unemployment so HIGH throughout the 1930's? As I have admitted, I do not doubt that the HIGH taxes that FDR's policies called for (he HAD to pander to some degree to the "balanced budget" crowd in Congress... ) kept an artificial limit on how far the private sector was willing to go to hire people AWAY from safe, secure and GUARANTEED Government jobs like the WPA, the CCC, and many others. Just as influential though, was the possibility that people like our grandparents that HAD a job for the government were very reluctant to give it up for a job that might vanish in a year... even if it did pay more. Can THIS be discounted when considering what THAT generation went through from '29 to '33? Don't you think that there was a limit on how much the people were willing to TEST their trust of FDR's new economy? Put yourself in their shoes, and tell me you'd risk your GUARANTEED $100 a month job for a $150 a month job that might dry up and blow away without warning... especially with a house full of kids and a mortgage to pay. Is that a FAILING of the New Deal, or is that a FACT of hard economic times?
Finally, I want to ask... once and for all... WHAT did WWII fix? Unemployment? By '41, the rate was less than 9%, and FALLING. Everything else was at levels as high as... or higher than... they had been in '29! What did the US involvement in WWII FIX that wasn't fixed already?
Can you deny that, while the people NOT enlisted had jobs and paychecks and savings bonds, they didn't have anything to BUY until AFTER the winter of 1945? Could Rosie the Riveter buy a new Chrysler in '43? (No new cars produced from '41 to '46) Could her kids buy new Schwins? (steel rationing, rubber rationing) How many pairs of stockings did she buy each month? (silk and cotton rationing) Was there a new vacuum cleaner under her tree that Christmas? (no consumer electric motor production, plastic rationing) Did she take the kids on vacation for the summer? (gas rationing, mileage limits, train and road taxes)
If times are tough now, it is because the US has (once again) forgotten that credit needs to be paid back. This was what caused the '29 crash, too. The BOOM of the 50's was due to a NATION that was forced to SAVE money. Soldiers and sailors coming home to back pay and bonuses, and wives and kids cashing in war bonds by the armload. You cannot point to a post-war boom and not recognize the pre-war and war-time freeze on spending, intentional or otherwise.
So, please... answer this one question if you do nothing else: What did WWII fix that wasn't already either FIXED or rapidly IMPROVING without the war?
Roosevelt promised a "new deal" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, IL on July 2nd, 1932. It was his name for his "promises" to work to alleviate the pains of the depression of '29, which was rapidly reaching its lowest point. These promises included new jobs for millions, new opportunities for business, and a new level of trust between Government and the private sector.
Hell YES I think the repeal of the Volstead Act was New Deal legislation! Ending 13 years of useless government regulation on morality that crippled an HUGE section of our national economy and forced more than a million people and hundreds of successful businesses into bankruptcy... how much more "New Deal" can you get than that? I don't care by what process the change was made... FDR initiated it, and it was part of his election campaign PROMISES, so that, by its very definition, makes it NEW DEAL. Sheesh.
You wrote: "DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. Now first we must quickly discern something (again, for I have done this at nauseam). The two depressions that hit in the 30's DO NOT by themselves define the historical term "The Great Depression." Ok? The Great Depression includes those two depressions, at least 2 recessions (if I remember correctly from class), the turbulent stock market including high value wipe outs, and probably THE MOST significant in terms of effecting everyday persons living in that era - UNEMPLOYMENT."
Ad nauseum, indeed. We HAVE been over this many time before, my friend... I thought it amply covered. However...
There were TWO depressions between 1929 and 1939. TWO. '29 to '33 and '37 to '38. that's it. No recessions. Why do I say this? Because the GDP (the LARGEST indicator of a recession/depression) did nothing but go UP from '33 to '37, and from '38 to '40. Only UP. In fact, by the spring of 1937, the GDP was HIGHER than it had been in 1929 before the Crash! ALL ECONOMIC INDICATORS were higher than their '29 levels except unemployment, and it was at its lowest since '33 (14%). So, by 1939, the US economy was BIGGER and growing FASTER than it had been before the "Black Tuesday" crash of '29. The ONLY difference was that by 1939, the nations still had an 11% unemployment rate, and it had been as low as 3.3% in 1929.
Now, with the economy hitting it's rock-bottom in 1933, and EVERY SINGLE economic indicator (low prime interest rate, low inflation rate, rising GDP, the dollar getting stronger every day, and unemployment FALLING at a steady and measurable rate) showing the "Great Depression" to have ended by 1939, a full TWO YEARS before Pearl Harbor... you are STILL going to tell me that the policies and programs instituted by the Roosevelt Administrations that have become known as the New Deal had NOTHING to do with the recovery... and that NOTHING got better until the US was ass-deep in WWII and cranking out Shermans and B-17 like they were going out of style? Who is making the stretch now?
I'm so TIRED of hearing wanna-be conservative intellectuals (present company excluded... mostly) constantly referring to New Deal policies, especially FDR's policies, as "socialist". If FDR wanted to institute socialism in America, what better opportunity did he have than the chance to nationalize the banks, railroads, and industries that were CRASHING down around his ears? He RAN for office on the premise that "laissez faire" economic policies WERE NOT working for Hoover (and they weren't), so he instituted greater regulation and oversight... yes. But it was a far cry from socialism.
That aside... back to my main point.
NO ONE can say that the economy hadn't recovered all that it had lost EXCEPT in the realm of employment. So, what was it that kept unemployment so HIGH throughout the 1930's? As I have admitted, I do not doubt that the HIGH taxes that FDR's policies called for (he HAD to pander to some degree to the "balanced budget" crowd in Congress... ) kept an artificial limit on how far the private sector was willing to go to hire people AWAY from safe, secure and GUARANTEED Government jobs like the WPA, the CCC, and many others. Just as influential though, was the possibility that people like our grandparents that HAD a job for the government were very reluctant to give it up for a job that might vanish in a year... even if it did pay more. Can THIS be discounted when considering what THAT generation went through from '29 to '33? Don't you think that there was a limit on how much the people were willing to TEST their trust of FDR's new economy? Put yourself in their shoes, and tell me you'd risk your GUARANTEED $100 a month job for a $150 a month job that might dry up and blow away without warning... especially with a house full of kids and a mortgage to pay. Is that a FAILING of the New Deal, or is that a FACT of hard economic times?
Finally, I want to ask... once and for all... WHAT did WWII fix? Unemployment? By '41, the rate was less than 9%, and FALLING. Everything else was at levels as high as... or higher than... they had been in '29! What did the US involvement in WWII FIX that wasn't fixed already?
Can you deny that, while the people NOT enlisted had jobs and paychecks and savings bonds, they didn't have anything to BUY until AFTER the winter of 1945? Could Rosie the Riveter buy a new Chrysler in '43? (No new cars produced from '41 to '46) Could her kids buy new Schwins? (steel rationing, rubber rationing) How many pairs of stockings did she buy each month? (silk and cotton rationing) Was there a new vacuum cleaner under her tree that Christmas? (no consumer electric motor production, plastic rationing) Did she take the kids on vacation for the summer? (gas rationing, mileage limits, train and road taxes)
If times are tough now, it is because the US has (once again) forgotten that credit needs to be paid back. This was what caused the '29 crash, too. The BOOM of the 50's was due to a NATION that was forced to SAVE money. Soldiers and sailors coming home to back pay and bonuses, and wives and kids cashing in war bonds by the armload. You cannot point to a post-war boom and not recognize the pre-war and war-time freeze on spending, intentional or otherwise.
So, please... answer this one question if you do nothing else: What did WWII fix that wasn't already either FIXED or rapidly IMPROVING without the war?
New Deal = FAILURE, period.
Now that doesn't mean FDR was a total failure as president, that question involves much more then just the New Deal.
That being said . . . Jambo, now damnit, you left out what was perhaps the most important concession you made in that late night phone call.
In your last you wrote:
"Did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No. "
Ok, yes we agreed upon that.
"Did massive government spending help the private sector recover? No."
Again, we agreed.
"Was the New Deal a failure? No."
What in bloody hell? That is NOT what we agreed upon as an answer, and for a very simple reason. Those auspices of the WPA, that you rightly point out contributed to our WWII victory, do NOT represent an accurate definition of THE NEW DEAL. The New Deal wasn't just the WPA or TVA.
You can't simply minus the NRA, the AAA and basically every aspect of the New Deal outside of those aspects of the WPA, point to their contribution in our war effort and then declare "The New Deal was a success." You can say that aspects of the WPA had the very fortunate side effect (and that's exactly what they were, for fighting the Axis Powers was NOT why they were enacted) of contributing to our war effort, BUT THAT'S IT! In other words, if you strip away everything about the New Deal EXCEPT the TVA and some aspects of the WPA, you no longer have quote, "The New Deal." You have a fortunate side effect in terms of energy and bridges. Not to mention, the charter, for lack of a better word, of the New Deal was to wage a successful domestic economic war, not a foreign World War. Bottom line - it did not do what it was intended to do (end the Great Depression hardships). And those parts that did contribute to our war efforts do not represent the sum total of quote, "the New Deal." Look, I've heard you say to me over the phone, "90% of the New Deal was struck down in 1935", in your effort to contradict those who say the New Deal actually prolonged the Era of the Great Depression until the War. Well whatever that percentage actually is, the point is that what survives the 1935 rulings and contributed to our war effort can not on their own still be described as "The New Deal."
So, in closing on this response to your post - a limited number of programs, initiated under New Deal economic legislation, had the very fortunate side effect of aiding our war time efforts. And damnit, THAT is not semantics. I understand that Titus disagrees with our summation of New Deal effects on the US economy, but I think he would agree that IF your position is that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, and did not enhance the private sector - in other words it was an economic flub - then you can't cherry pick the aspects of the WPA that helped us through WWII and declare "THE NEW DEAL SUCCEEDED." You can't on the one hand say the New Deal didn't extend the Great Depression because much of it (including the centerpiece, the NRA) was wiped out by the Supreme Court in 1935; then on the other hand say what survived IS THE NEW DEAL, and those aspects helping us in WWII justify it as a success. Try as you might here, 2 and 2 do NOT equal 5 . . . less you think that distinction semantic as well.
****
For Titus ... First, I wasn't aware that repealing prohibition was a New Deal legislative act. I mean come on man. That's a hell of a stretch if your intent is to defend the New Deal. Yes, the 32' Democrat campaign platform included repeal as a plank of the over all Party, but its repeal was an Amendment to the Constitution! It was ratified by the states, as all amendments are - this is NOT New Deal buddy ... come on.
Second: "Why doesn't this make sense to any one but me." For a very simple reason: you're arguing a point that we aren't debating. Jambo clearly asked and answered a question we have settled - DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. Now first we must quickly discern something (again, for I have done this at nauseam). The two depressions that hit in the 30's DO NOT by themselves define the historical term "The Great Depression." Ok? The Great Depression includes those two depressions, at least 2 recessions (if I remember correctly from class), the turbulent stock market including high value wipe outs, and probably THE MOST significant in terms of effecting everyday persons living in that era - UNEMPLOYMENT. Allowing that as a proper definition of "THE GREAT DEPRESSION" requires us to answer a resounding "NO" to the question, "Did the New Deal end the Great Depression?"
Even in your Ross Perot-esque chart lecture there, your strongest advocacy line was:
"Now, was the New Deal totally responsible for this [GDP rise]... solely and exclusively? No, certainly not. Much of the recovery was a normal cyclical feature of any macroeconomic engine the size and scope of the US... but I don't think there is any question that it CONTRIBUTED."
Well, well. When we first engaged in the largest, oldest, and ongoing Bund debate - New Deal, your original contention was in no uncertain terms - "The New Deal ended the Great Depression before the war." Now, after years of barrage from me and the conversion of Jambo (at least on the economic effect), you are reduced to describing its' effect as, "contributive."
And let me add something I think key. FDR's 3rd stab at the Presidency was in real jeopardy. The only thing that pulled him through was the campaign promise (and a blatant lie) that he intended to keep US boys out of the European War. And just why was his candidacy in jeopardy? Follow me here - there was a very slow increase in the economy beginning in 1933, and another noticeable tick up after 1935. However, FDR and his economic cabinet (pre John Meynard Keynes) implemented some anti inflationary measures (I guess they thought the New Deal was working "too well") and severely curtailed non New Deal government spending by June of 37'. This commenced with the new Social Security taxes taking their first large scale bites out of paychecks (soc-sec being clearly New Deal legislation). Between the 2 by late Summer of 1937 the US saw the worst economic downturn since 1929. Within months this "Roosevelt recession" cost 2 million workers their jobs. That statistically wipes out 2/3rds of ALL federally created jobs in the number you cited, IN ONE SUMMER. And this occurs with both the surviving elements of the 1st New Deal and all of the 2nd New Deal legislation firmly in place!
Look, the point is that history has come to recognize that without WWII the hardships during the Great Depression era may have dragged on for an untold number of years into the future, most notably in unemployment numbers - in other words New Deal DID NOT end the Great Depression as intended, thus in my opinion (and that of many economists & I assume about 2 million people in August of 37') it failed. Again, I give credit to FDR for originally inspiring people, or restoring their faith if you will that "someone was doing something" (at least they felt that way at first). And the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the maximum work weeks and set forth the strict child labor laws we all take for granted now. And Jambo is correct in pointing out that aspects of the WPA (NOT the New Deal, it is simply incorrect and overeaching to state it that way), aided our war time effort. But, the New Deal, as FDR put forth and history recorded, DID NOT end the Great Depression, WWII did - not as a book end, but literally in terms of the economic hardship that defines that era.
If you still feel compelled to grant FDR the status of "ending the Great Depression", then credit him for his vigorous and righteous response to Pearl Harbor, and our entry into the second World War without hesitation and with all the vigor and verb the conflict called for. On that, I would agree.
****
The "second oathe." These opening days of amateur hour are something the nation hasn't seen since Bill Clinton's infamous "gays in the military" fiasco in the first two weeks of his administration. The first press conference held by Obama's Press Secretary, Gibbs (no, he's not a BeeGee), got quite hostile over this issue. I was unaware, but the press core brought it up (and the Press Sec acknowledged) that in such an event - a second swearing in - independent press confirmation and recording (i.e. a picture snapped) is the tradition. No press were allowed in. The picture was snapped by a paid administrator . . . and that press core wasn't happy about it, to the point of sounding offended.
Add to that they are closing GITMO. Ok, I said to myself, I knew that would happen no matter who won, as McCain made the same campaign promise. But to declare its closing in 12 months, as a deadline, BEFORE you decide what to do with those detainees, or even what process you will establish to make that determination (outside of a commission to "study it") seems ridiculously out of sorts with reality. I appreciate that he intends to keep a campaign promise, but come on President Barry - you announce that it will close and simultaneously admit you have NO IDEA what you're going to do with them? What is that? That's not Messianic leadership, I assure you.
One last bit on our new president - he is keeping his BlackBerry (no pun intended), as was announced today. He will be the first US president to use email. That's right, Bush held private conversations over the phone because any written correspondence, with very narrow limitations on personal familial relationships, is subject to (I forget the act) future review and release to the public. That's fine, no criticism here, but what I found interesting was the Press Sec's noting that "a small inner circle" will have the email address. Ok, his wife and kids for sure, but who else, officially? The cabinet? The NSA? Who? I ask because there is a protocol for chain of command, even for the political offices. So imagine you're the Secretary of Defense, you want the president's ear, NOW, but the Chief of Staff is putting you off (pick a reason). Why bother with the Chief of Staff - the traditional gate keeper of the Oval Office. Just email your pal Barry, screw Rahm. Like I said, not a critique, just interesting to me is all.
That being said . . . Jambo, now damnit, you left out what was perhaps the most important concession you made in that late night phone call.
In your last you wrote:
"Did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No. "
Ok, yes we agreed upon that.
"Did massive government spending help the private sector recover? No."
Again, we agreed.
"Was the New Deal a failure? No."
What in bloody hell? That is NOT what we agreed upon as an answer, and for a very simple reason. Those auspices of the WPA, that you rightly point out contributed to our WWII victory, do NOT represent an accurate definition of THE NEW DEAL. The New Deal wasn't just the WPA or TVA.
You can't simply minus the NRA, the AAA and basically every aspect of the New Deal outside of those aspects of the WPA, point to their contribution in our war effort and then declare "The New Deal was a success." You can say that aspects of the WPA had the very fortunate side effect (and that's exactly what they were, for fighting the Axis Powers was NOT why they were enacted) of contributing to our war effort, BUT THAT'S IT! In other words, if you strip away everything about the New Deal EXCEPT the TVA and some aspects of the WPA, you no longer have quote, "The New Deal." You have a fortunate side effect in terms of energy and bridges. Not to mention, the charter, for lack of a better word, of the New Deal was to wage a successful domestic economic war, not a foreign World War. Bottom line - it did not do what it was intended to do (end the Great Depression hardships). And those parts that did contribute to our war efforts do not represent the sum total of quote, "the New Deal." Look, I've heard you say to me over the phone, "90% of the New Deal was struck down in 1935", in your effort to contradict those who say the New Deal actually prolonged the Era of the Great Depression until the War. Well whatever that percentage actually is, the point is that what survives the 1935 rulings and contributed to our war effort can not on their own still be described as "The New Deal."
So, in closing on this response to your post - a limited number of programs, initiated under New Deal economic legislation, had the very fortunate side effect of aiding our war time efforts. And damnit, THAT is not semantics. I understand that Titus disagrees with our summation of New Deal effects on the US economy, but I think he would agree that IF your position is that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, and did not enhance the private sector - in other words it was an economic flub - then you can't cherry pick the aspects of the WPA that helped us through WWII and declare "THE NEW DEAL SUCCEEDED." You can't on the one hand say the New Deal didn't extend the Great Depression because much of it (including the centerpiece, the NRA) was wiped out by the Supreme Court in 1935; then on the other hand say what survived IS THE NEW DEAL, and those aspects helping us in WWII justify it as a success. Try as you might here, 2 and 2 do NOT equal 5 . . . less you think that distinction semantic as well.
****
For Titus ... First, I wasn't aware that repealing prohibition was a New Deal legislative act. I mean come on man. That's a hell of a stretch if your intent is to defend the New Deal. Yes, the 32' Democrat campaign platform included repeal as a plank of the over all Party, but its repeal was an Amendment to the Constitution! It was ratified by the states, as all amendments are - this is NOT New Deal buddy ... come on.
Second: "Why doesn't this make sense to any one but me." For a very simple reason: you're arguing a point that we aren't debating. Jambo clearly asked and answered a question we have settled - DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. Now first we must quickly discern something (again, for I have done this at nauseam). The two depressions that hit in the 30's DO NOT by themselves define the historical term "The Great Depression." Ok? The Great Depression includes those two depressions, at least 2 recessions (if I remember correctly from class), the turbulent stock market including high value wipe outs, and probably THE MOST significant in terms of effecting everyday persons living in that era - UNEMPLOYMENT. Allowing that as a proper definition of "THE GREAT DEPRESSION" requires us to answer a resounding "NO" to the question, "Did the New Deal end the Great Depression?"
Even in your Ross Perot-esque chart lecture there, your strongest advocacy line was:
"Now, was the New Deal totally responsible for this [GDP rise]... solely and exclusively? No, certainly not. Much of the recovery was a normal cyclical feature of any macroeconomic engine the size and scope of the US... but I don't think there is any question that it CONTRIBUTED."
Well, well. When we first engaged in the largest, oldest, and ongoing Bund debate - New Deal, your original contention was in no uncertain terms - "The New Deal ended the Great Depression before the war." Now, after years of barrage from me and the conversion of Jambo (at least on the economic effect), you are reduced to describing its' effect as, "contributive."
And let me add something I think key. FDR's 3rd stab at the Presidency was in real jeopardy. The only thing that pulled him through was the campaign promise (and a blatant lie) that he intended to keep US boys out of the European War. And just why was his candidacy in jeopardy? Follow me here - there was a very slow increase in the economy beginning in 1933, and another noticeable tick up after 1935. However, FDR and his economic cabinet (pre John Meynard Keynes) implemented some anti inflationary measures (I guess they thought the New Deal was working "too well") and severely curtailed non New Deal government spending by June of 37'. This commenced with the new Social Security taxes taking their first large scale bites out of paychecks (soc-sec being clearly New Deal legislation). Between the 2 by late Summer of 1937 the US saw the worst economic downturn since 1929. Within months this "Roosevelt recession" cost 2 million workers their jobs. That statistically wipes out 2/3rds of ALL federally created jobs in the number you cited, IN ONE SUMMER. And this occurs with both the surviving elements of the 1st New Deal and all of the 2nd New Deal legislation firmly in place!
Look, the point is that history has come to recognize that without WWII the hardships during the Great Depression era may have dragged on for an untold number of years into the future, most notably in unemployment numbers - in other words New Deal DID NOT end the Great Depression as intended, thus in my opinion (and that of many economists & I assume about 2 million people in August of 37') it failed. Again, I give credit to FDR for originally inspiring people, or restoring their faith if you will that "someone was doing something" (at least they felt that way at first). And the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the maximum work weeks and set forth the strict child labor laws we all take for granted now. And Jambo is correct in pointing out that aspects of the WPA (NOT the New Deal, it is simply incorrect and overeaching to state it that way), aided our war time effort. But, the New Deal, as FDR put forth and history recorded, DID NOT end the Great Depression, WWII did - not as a book end, but literally in terms of the economic hardship that defines that era.
If you still feel compelled to grant FDR the status of "ending the Great Depression", then credit him for his vigorous and righteous response to Pearl Harbor, and our entry into the second World War without hesitation and with all the vigor and verb the conflict called for. On that, I would agree.
****
The "second oathe." These opening days of amateur hour are something the nation hasn't seen since Bill Clinton's infamous "gays in the military" fiasco in the first two weeks of his administration. The first press conference held by Obama's Press Secretary, Gibbs (no, he's not a BeeGee), got quite hostile over this issue. I was unaware, but the press core brought it up (and the Press Sec acknowledged) that in such an event - a second swearing in - independent press confirmation and recording (i.e. a picture snapped) is the tradition. No press were allowed in. The picture was snapped by a paid administrator . . . and that press core wasn't happy about it, to the point of sounding offended.
Add to that they are closing GITMO. Ok, I said to myself, I knew that would happen no matter who won, as McCain made the same campaign promise. But to declare its closing in 12 months, as a deadline, BEFORE you decide what to do with those detainees, or even what process you will establish to make that determination (outside of a commission to "study it") seems ridiculously out of sorts with reality. I appreciate that he intends to keep a campaign promise, but come on President Barry - you announce that it will close and simultaneously admit you have NO IDEA what you're going to do with them? What is that? That's not Messianic leadership, I assure you.
One last bit on our new president - he is keeping his BlackBerry (no pun intended), as was announced today. He will be the first US president to use email. That's right, Bush held private conversations over the phone because any written correspondence, with very narrow limitations on personal familial relationships, is subject to (I forget the act) future review and release to the public. That's fine, no criticism here, but what I found interesting was the Press Sec's noting that "a small inner circle" will have the email address. Ok, his wife and kids for sure, but who else, officially? The cabinet? The NSA? Who? I ask because there is a protocol for chain of command, even for the political offices. So imagine you're the Secretary of Defense, you want the president's ear, NOW, but the Chief of Staff is putting you off (pick a reason). Why bother with the Chief of Staff - the traditional gate keeper of the Oval Office. Just email your pal Barry, screw Rahm. Like I said, not a critique, just interesting to me is all.
Post 2 of 2
Man, do we thank Obama for this fascination with the New Deal lately? How can this remain such a topic of debate here in a forum where we have shown time and time again that the New Deal, at the very least, contributed to the recovery of the US economy from the depression of '29, the depression of '37, and the more general era of the Great Depression ('29-'39)?
The "First New Deal" (begun in FDR's first 100 days of 1933) was a series of programs intended to offer SHORT TERM solutions for the crushing economic crisis the US was experiencing. I refute the contention that the New Deal did nothing to help the "private sector" (even though Jambo's words in his post were "New Deal spending"). Ending Prohibition ALONE opened an avenue of the free market that had been closed for 13 years and had resulted in the closing of 241 independent breweries and distilleries and put 1.7 million people out of work across the nation... without costing the Federal government anything more than the paper involved in repealing the XVIII Amendment, and SAVING the Federal government an estimated $800 million a year in enforcement costs.
I can't make it any clearer than by "graphically" showing what the GDP did from 1933 to 1940, so here it is:
The "First New Deal" (begun in FDR's first 100 days of 1933) was a series of programs intended to offer SHORT TERM solutions for the crushing economic crisis the US was experiencing. I refute the contention that the New Deal did nothing to help the "private sector" (even though Jambo's words in his post were "New Deal spending"). Ending Prohibition ALONE opened an avenue of the free market that had been closed for 13 years and had resulted in the closing of 241 independent breweries and distilleries and put 1.7 million people out of work across the nation... without costing the Federal government anything more than the paper involved in repealing the XVIII Amendment, and SAVING the Federal government an estimated $800 million a year in enforcement costs.
I can't make it any clearer than by "graphically" showing what the GDP did from 1933 to 1940, so here it is:
Look at this graph and tell me it doesn't show everything I have been saying for years now... the four-year fall of the GDP from Oct '29 to May of '33 (and you can even see Hoover's abortive attempts to fix the problem with increased government spending and higher taxes in '32!)... the steady rise in GDP from '33 to '37, when the second depression hits... and the continued recovery from that point on.
Now, was the New Deal totally responsible for this... solely and exclusively? No, certainly not. Much of the recovery was a normal cyclical feature of any macroeconomic engine the size and scope of the US... but I don't think there is any question that it CONTRIBUTED. The rise is every bit as constant and strong as the fall was rapid. I see no GDP indication that ANYTHING Hoover was doing prior to July of '32 was effecting the Crash at all... does anyone else? Hell, the RISE in GDP from '33 to '37 is FASTER and more pronounced than what we see in the famous "Roaring Twenties"!
Did specific aspects of the New Deal programs fail? Yes... at least three major programs were determined to be un-Constitutional, but many STILL exist and function, and at least 2 of those are still making the Federal government a PROFIT (TVA at roughly $178 million/year and Hoover Dam at roughly $200 million/year). Other legacy institutions are Social Security, the SEC, FDIC, and Fannie Mae (whose most recent failings are not inherently based on the program, but on the program's mismanagement by corrupt Democratic appointees to its BoD. Fannie Mae was, from '46 to '78, a PROFITABLE Federally owned corporation).
How do I convince you that arguing to the contrary with what I am saying is futile? History vindicates the New Deal... BECAUSE it worked to alleviate the crisis that was the Depression Era. I do not deny that aspects of the crisis, coupled with high government taxes, artificially kept unemployment HIGH for the entire decade, but the Feds offered or created 3.3 million jobs to offset this effect (which may or may not have added to the problem... I know).
This doesn't mean I think the New Deal should have been maintained over the next 39 years, though... I'm a believer in the plan of lowering taxes (or deficit spending) in a down economy, and increased taxes (or a balanced budget) in strong economic times. That means, Ike and JFK should have worked off of balanced budgets far more than they did, and that Carter (and the Democrat Congress) should have been CUTTING taxes (as Reagan showed us).
Why doesn't this make sense to anyone but me?
Post 1 of 2
Liz is obsessing about the fact that, while Obama did re-take the Oath of Office, he didn't do it with a Bible. She feels this, coupled with the fact of the near total "Obama-mania" sweeping the world, the Obama is a prime candidate for the fundamentalist version of the Anti-Christ.
Obviously, having heard (I couldn't watch it live, but it was on the radio in my office) the swearing-in of both Biden and Obama, I'm aware that Obama is blameless in the "Oath-flub". Roberts was obviously nervous, and Obama had, undoubtedly, memorized the Oath so as to ensure that he had it down-pat and would look good on TV. When Roberts prompted him with the wrong wording, Obama froze up... understandably so, too. It might look worse had he repeated the WRONG Oath, than if he simply did what he did.
My point is more along this lines... Did he HAVE to retake the Oath? Was there a Constitutional question prior to his retaking it? If you read the XX Amendment, there is NO mention of an Oath, only that the new President and Vice President take office at noon on the 20th of January. All other requirements, according to the XX Amendment, had been met... duly elected, Congressional certification of the election results, a new Congress waiting for the new Executive Branch... all was done, the only question was the "swearing in".
People's beef mainly seemed to be that the Oath as administered on Jan 20 was "reworded"... but Presidents have been adding words since John Adams took office. There is no place in the Oath where the Constitution says the new CIC must say "...so help me God." Yet, 49 of the last 55 times the Oath has been administered, those words were added... usually at the prompting of the Justice administering it. Certainly there is no requirement that the Oath be administered on a Bible, and at least one Muslim has taken his Oath of Office on a Qu'ran (a Representative whose name I forget)... and many have NOT used a Bible at all.
I'm glad he retook the Oath, if only to avoid the drama of giving his detractors the ability to use the question it raises against him, and ultimately, against the country. Just thought I'd bring it up, so see if anyone else had any thoughts...
Obviously, having heard (I couldn't watch it live, but it was on the radio in my office) the swearing-in of both Biden and Obama, I'm aware that Obama is blameless in the "Oath-flub". Roberts was obviously nervous, and Obama had, undoubtedly, memorized the Oath so as to ensure that he had it down-pat and would look good on TV. When Roberts prompted him with the wrong wording, Obama froze up... understandably so, too. It might look worse had he repeated the WRONG Oath, than if he simply did what he did.
My point is more along this lines... Did he HAVE to retake the Oath? Was there a Constitutional question prior to his retaking it? If you read the XX Amendment, there is NO mention of an Oath, only that the new President and Vice President take office at noon on the 20th of January. All other requirements, according to the XX Amendment, had been met... duly elected, Congressional certification of the election results, a new Congress waiting for the new Executive Branch... all was done, the only question was the "swearing in".
People's beef mainly seemed to be that the Oath as administered on Jan 20 was "reworded"... but Presidents have been adding words since John Adams took office. There is no place in the Oath where the Constitution says the new CIC must say "...so help me God." Yet, 49 of the last 55 times the Oath has been administered, those words were added... usually at the prompting of the Justice administering it. Certainly there is no requirement that the Oath be administered on a Bible, and at least one Muslim has taken his Oath of Office on a Qu'ran (a Representative whose name I forget)... and many have NOT used a Bible at all.
I'm glad he retook the Oath, if only to avoid the drama of giving his detractors the ability to use the question it raises against him, and ultimately, against the country. Just thought I'd bring it up, so see if anyone else had any thoughts...
So much for quiet late night conversation.
My opening line after Ryan says "Hello?" last night at around 1:30 AM my time?
"Have you lost your BLEEPING mind?"
But he brought up serious points concerning New Deal and the Great Depression that I can no longer ignore as Republican revisionism.
Did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No.
Did massive government spending help the private sector recover? No.
Was the New Deal a failure? No.
I know, Ryan is shouting at the computer screen. The New Deal was designed to yank America out of the depression of 1929. Did it? Most of the original New Deal legislation enacted in the first 100 days gets struck down in 1935 by the Supreme Court, (NRA and AAA) and none of which were really a factor as the depression had ended in the spring of '33. But two reasons, one of which FDR COULD NOT envision in 1933, saves the legacy of the entire New Deal package.
1) The WPA.
2) The effect the TVA, BLM and aspects of WPA have on the war effort post '41.
It was my contention last night and I submit it for review for the whole Bund that WE DO NOT WIN THE WAR without the industrial infrastructure set up by these New Deal programs. Without the electricty provided by the plethora of Depression era dams built, our capacity for industrial manufacture is not neary what it is in 1941. Other projects include the bridges. Golden Gate and Oakland Bay are two, but how many Depression era bridges spanned the MS river, or had a massive impact on industrial centers throughout the US? How much of an impact do these have on getting workers to and from the docks, factories, etc. during the war?
Granted, this is opinion. I am not saying New Deal won us the war. I am saying we don't win it without the projects mentioned above and THAT saves the New Deal legacy.
A last question. Do we win the war without the bomb? Because there is NO WAY the Manhatten Project succeeds without the power generated by the TVA and the western dams.
"Have you lost your BLEEPING mind?"
But he brought up serious points concerning New Deal and the Great Depression that I can no longer ignore as Republican revisionism.
Did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No.
Did massive government spending help the private sector recover? No.
Was the New Deal a failure? No.
I know, Ryan is shouting at the computer screen. The New Deal was designed to yank America out of the depression of 1929. Did it? Most of the original New Deal legislation enacted in the first 100 days gets struck down in 1935 by the Supreme Court, (NRA and AAA) and none of which were really a factor as the depression had ended in the spring of '33. But two reasons, one of which FDR COULD NOT envision in 1933, saves the legacy of the entire New Deal package.
1) The WPA.
2) The effect the TVA, BLM and aspects of WPA have on the war effort post '41.
It was my contention last night and I submit it for review for the whole Bund that WE DO NOT WIN THE WAR without the industrial infrastructure set up by these New Deal programs. Without the electricty provided by the plethora of Depression era dams built, our capacity for industrial manufacture is not neary what it is in 1941. Other projects include the bridges. Golden Gate and Oakland Bay are two, but how many Depression era bridges spanned the MS river, or had a massive impact on industrial centers throughout the US? How much of an impact do these have on getting workers to and from the docks, factories, etc. during the war?
Granted, this is opinion. I am not saying New Deal won us the war. I am saying we don't win it without the projects mentioned above and THAT saves the New Deal legacy.
A last question. Do we win the war without the bomb? Because there is NO WAY the Manhatten Project succeeds without the power generated by the TVA and the western dams.
So much for the party for 1005...
Free time is a rare commodity, and sleep schedules rarely line up, but one of the benefits of working nights and having the children on a school night is that they're asleep by 9PM and I'm up until around 4AM. So here I am with a little free time and how do I spend it?
Reading old Bund posts. Man some of that is FUNNY!
I couldn't help laughing out loud at Ryan's giddiness over Palin's acceptance of the VP job. All our McCain hope, the wedding in PA, sigh.
If you get a chance, you need to rewind and read some of those. Classic.
Reading old Bund posts. Man some of that is FUNNY!
I couldn't help laughing out loud at Ryan's giddiness over Palin's acceptance of the VP job. All our McCain hope, the wedding in PA, sigh.
If you get a chance, you need to rewind and read some of those. Classic.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
A Bund Milestone
We have hit 1,000 posts on our site.
Actually, including this one we are at 1,004. Not too shabby . . . and not a bad way for dear friends whom share an appetite for intellectual endeavours to stay in touch in a post Katrina Diaspora world. Although the old driveway meetings are few and far between, this innovative tool we have come to embrace has ensured that Bund eyes roll, expletives fly, "well dones" are offered, key boards snap, and chuckles are had from one end of this fruited plain to the other, East, West, and South.
Here's to a thousand more.
Actually, including this one we are at 1,004. Not too shabby . . . and not a bad way for dear friends whom share an appetite for intellectual endeavours to stay in touch in a post Katrina Diaspora world. Although the old driveway meetings are few and far between, this innovative tool we have come to embrace has ensured that Bund eyes roll, expletives fly, "well dones" are offered, key boards snap, and chuckles are had from one end of this fruited plain to the other, East, West, and South.
Here's to a thousand more.
This will be a Trivial Persuit question one day for sure.
Yes, yes, I remember the discussion. Although it was the 2004 presidential election when that discussion took place, when Bush - bucking history - picked up more congressional seats in addition to his own win. This included the defeat of one Tom Daschle, the then very annoying Minority Leader (whose back now as HHS Sec). Titus was descending on the escalator to break, I up - an easy chance to catch me given I was oddly enough the last up from break. He was exclaiming as we passed in the middle, I grinning ear to ear at the broken, beaten, defunct Donkey - "Alright, alright. No excuses now. You guys got it all, no excuses for failure." Whether the GOP reign was in fact a total failure (the fiscal side of the GOP is enough to call it a partial) we shall discern in part in our up coming "report cards."
Funny you should remember that now - I've been using that very phraseology as my one and only verbal refuge for a response when the masses of Obama voters I work with (all whom know my political orientation) pass me on break (still a good opportunity to catch me, if you know what I mean ... hehe).
****
Now . . . as the new president took the oath yesterday I turned to my better half and noted, "HEY, they flubbed that (as much Chief Justice Robert's fault as President Obama's I might add), and they are not allowed to - it is prescribed in the Constitution, specifically word by word." You don't get to make up your own vows, like some hippie, pagan transcendentalist wedding. I thought it was a little funny - in an endearing way, one of those little side notes to history that 40 years from now only the good history teachers point out to their students, as sort of a "hey, even the CIC can get nervous" addendum. Chris Wallace, of FOX NEWS later joked as well, "Well, if he is not legally the president as a result of that flub, and it gets to the Supreme Court, Obama will have at least on YEAH vote."
Well get this - President Obama today, on the advice of the White House counsel, again took the oath of Chief Executive, this time without verbal incident (I don't know if they brought Roberts back in), in the Oval Office in a move the counsel described as "an abundance of caution." HA! Can you believe that? I can't imagine that has EVER happened before - he got to make history 2 days in a row it would seem.
Funny you should remember that now - I've been using that very phraseology as my one and only verbal refuge for a response when the masses of Obama voters I work with (all whom know my political orientation) pass me on break (still a good opportunity to catch me, if you know what I mean ... hehe).
****
Now . . . as the new president took the oath yesterday I turned to my better half and noted, "HEY, they flubbed that (as much Chief Justice Robert's fault as President Obama's I might add), and they are not allowed to - it is prescribed in the Constitution, specifically word by word." You don't get to make up your own vows, like some hippie, pagan transcendentalist wedding. I thought it was a little funny - in an endearing way, one of those little side notes to history that 40 years from now only the good history teachers point out to their students, as sort of a "hey, even the CIC can get nervous" addendum. Chris Wallace, of FOX NEWS later joked as well, "Well, if he is not legally the president as a result of that flub, and it gets to the Supreme Court, Obama will have at least on YEAH vote."
Well get this - President Obama today, on the advice of the White House counsel, again took the oath of Chief Executive, this time without verbal incident (I don't know if they brought Roberts back in), in the Oval Office in a move the counsel described as "an abundance of caution." HA! Can you believe that? I can't imagine that has EVER happened before - he got to make history 2 days in a row it would seem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
