What is it about the current leadership of the Democrat Party (particularly: Obama, Reid & Pelosi) that allows for such an overflow of hubris? Contrary to the designs of men such as Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson,
Harry Reid has announced (forgive the break in the sentence - I simply could not fathom putting his name along side theirs) that because "we are the only country in the world that does not allow their capitol a vote" they are going to pass legislation giving a congressional seat to represent the District of Columbia. First, not "every country" in the world even has a representative vote dear Mr. Reid. Second, have you know idea why the founders designed it that way? It is not a state, not a region, but a "district" precisely because of Lord Actin's ominous warning: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The founders wanted no one state to have the advantage of the national capitol laying within its' borders, nor did they recognize a congressional seat from the district because power can and does function on proximity. Imagine a congressman or woman whose very district covers 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Along with every office, condo, apartment, and 2nd home of every member of the congress, of both houses, not to mention of each and every beltway reporter. In addition, they have access to every facet of power 365 days a year. The new congressman would have instant disproportionate weight and celebrity. And the only reason the Democrat leadership wants the new congressional seat established is because they know D.C. is a Mecca of liberal ideology, thus they would be granting themselves a new safe Democrat held seat in perpetuity. Obama would be the first president in history to vote in the mid term elections, as president (adding to his ever growing list of "firsts").
I'll give em' this - when they go for a power grab, they REALLY go. From banks, to the US Census Bureau being ran through the White House (instead of Commerce, for political redistricting), to the new "Durbin Amendment" from "little Dick Durbin" (as he is known to talk radio fans), which is the Fairness Doctrine by another name, to this new budget and universal health care, they truly are trying to fundamentally reshape America into their version of what it "should" be: a socialist Utopia . . . a fundamentalist pipe dream which has brought forth one government after another, and tossed them into the trash heap of history.
God help us.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Ah ha . . . some agreement!
Bobby Jindal . . . I couldn't agree more that he, at 37 years old, an accomplished (that's putting it lightly) conservative, pragmatist with stone ones when it comes to facing down sate vs federal government rights, IS the future of the Grand Ol' Party, if the Republicans have an ounce of sense left. I heard the derisions of his response as well, the same radio interview (I assume), and as Jambo will note I have been tracking his career since he first ran for governor at age 32. Unfortunately I don't feel we can count on the GOP machine to have that ounce of common sense (in this new budget Republicans have 40% of the ear marks - there goes your high moral ground on spending), so Bobby will need to pull an Obama - take the Party over from the current "powers that be" with the grass roots, and barn storm into the GOP nomination for 2012, being pushed there by his ability to excite the rank and file, just as our current president did in the Democrat Party (no one thought some upstart could oust the Clinton machine, including me). I too Titus, find it curious that the 2 candidates MOST outside the beltway, MOST conservative (compared to DC Republicans), possessing the MOST ability to ignite the grass roots of the GOP: Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, find the least of support from beltway Republicans and other falmiliar GOP faces. But I'll tell you right now Governor Jindal, if you're listening - I will knock on doors for you. In the immortal words of that great poet, Larry the Cable Guy: "Get er' done!"
****
PMC's - that was a fine question badboy. I agree with what seems to be the Bund consensus, they are legitimate. As to what pushes them from legitimacy to illegitimacy? I think the answer is before us, we just dislike saying it out loud. It leaves a bad taste in our mouth as Americans. If they are fighting for us, our allies or any of the interests thereof, they are legitimate. If they are fighting in opposition to any of those, they are illegitimate. Is that hypocritical - ABSOLUTELY! National self interests often tend to be hypocritical, but national self interest is the manner in which our government MUST conduct itself. Why? Because I truly believe historically we hold the higher moral ground (not to mention I live here). Our version of liberty is far from perfect but it IS the most perfect man has ever witnessed, in my opinion. I'm reminded of a Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one." This is true. And this is not to say you all disagree with me here, I'm just making an argument in general. Yes, it would be great if our government could operate internationally free of hypocrisy at every turn, but that isn't the way the world works. We are all big boys and girls and should realize that everybody singing along, holding hands, playing by the same rules is not the way strategic geopolitics works. So, if you fight for us or our allies you are "good", or legitimate. If not, you are "bad." In the same way we disallow our citizens to do business with rouge states, but we do business with those that do (China, Russia), is this hypocritical? Of course. But it is in our strategic best interests, and those interests can not, and must not, be constrained by a Pollyanna definition of hypocrisy, but rather a strategic, real world assessment of how best to preserve our democracy and that of our allies. This is not to say we abandon moral clarity (if Blackwater screws up, they pay the price) but rather unrealistic constraints on what could be definitionally considered "hypocritical."
****
Now, as to why I clicked on today . . . The president submitted his budget. And among this monstrosity (which almost triples Bush's last) is $634 billion for universal health care. Is it just me OR DO WE NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? He is collecting taxes, putting them in what is described as a "lock box" for a program that does not yet exist. We have had no debate, no legislative votes, no law, no program to mandate this, yet he is raising revenue for it. How is this even legal? This is de facto law by decree! What's next? Illicit arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to raise revenue for a personal, narrow cause? See, I can have a sense of humor about Reagan ... hallowed be his name, peace be upon him. This is beyond "back door", it is jammed in sideways. Uggh . . going to be a long 4 years. Bobby - PLEASE don't have any skeletons in your closest. We need you guy . . . ASAP.
****
PMC's - that was a fine question badboy. I agree with what seems to be the Bund consensus, they are legitimate. As to what pushes them from legitimacy to illegitimacy? I think the answer is before us, we just dislike saying it out loud. It leaves a bad taste in our mouth as Americans. If they are fighting for us, our allies or any of the interests thereof, they are legitimate. If they are fighting in opposition to any of those, they are illegitimate. Is that hypocritical - ABSOLUTELY! National self interests often tend to be hypocritical, but national self interest is the manner in which our government MUST conduct itself. Why? Because I truly believe historically we hold the higher moral ground (not to mention I live here). Our version of liberty is far from perfect but it IS the most perfect man has ever witnessed, in my opinion. I'm reminded of a Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one." This is true. And this is not to say you all disagree with me here, I'm just making an argument in general. Yes, it would be great if our government could operate internationally free of hypocrisy at every turn, but that isn't the way the world works. We are all big boys and girls and should realize that everybody singing along, holding hands, playing by the same rules is not the way strategic geopolitics works. So, if you fight for us or our allies you are "good", or legitimate. If not, you are "bad." In the same way we disallow our citizens to do business with rouge states, but we do business with those that do (China, Russia), is this hypocritical? Of course. But it is in our strategic best interests, and those interests can not, and must not, be constrained by a Pollyanna definition of hypocrisy, but rather a strategic, real world assessment of how best to preserve our democracy and that of our allies. This is not to say we abandon moral clarity (if Blackwater screws up, they pay the price) but rather unrealistic constraints on what could be definitionally considered "hypocritical."
****
Now, as to why I clicked on today . . . The president submitted his budget. And among this monstrosity (which almost triples Bush's last) is $634 billion for universal health care. Is it just me OR DO WE NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? He is collecting taxes, putting them in what is described as a "lock box" for a program that does not yet exist. We have had no debate, no legislative votes, no law, no program to mandate this, yet he is raising revenue for it. How is this even legal? This is de facto law by decree! What's next? Illicit arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to raise revenue for a personal, narrow cause? See, I can have a sense of humor about Reagan ... hallowed be his name, peace be upon him. This is beyond "back door", it is jammed in sideways. Uggh . . going to be a long 4 years. Bobby - PLEASE don't have any skeletons in your closest. We need you guy . . . ASAP.
Good post!
Sierra Leone. Liberia. Angola. Papua New Guinea. Afghanistan. Iraq. Nepal. Each of these nations has seen "private military companies" like Exec Outcomes, Sandline and Aegis operate relatively successfully in the last 15 years.
Your question about whether or not they are a legitimate recognized military force, or are they simply "enemy combatants" who happen to be fighting on our side in most of the places listed above is a damn good one. Had you asked me 5 or more years ago, I'd have said flat-out that they were not legitimate... they were mercenaries for hire with no one to answer to when they made "mistakes".
But, the line between "hired thug" and "professional soldier" blurs a bit now, if the only requirement for the latter is fighting for an established government. Every one of the governments listed above were officially recognized by the US as sovereign elected governments, and how they choose to develop and shape their individual defense and security forces is totally up to them. How many of these governments did not have the means (or the time) to recruit, train, equip and field regular standing forces for the defense of a government that the US recognizes as "legit"? A shockingly good example of the kind of brutality that these forces face can be found in the book A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah. 12 years old and forced to fight for the government forces of Sierra Leone, the story is a heartbreaking tale of tragedy and brutality that shows just how quickly things can get impossibly complicated for small, poor but legitimate governments with almost no means of production but substantial amounts of cash (Sierra Leone retains as much as 54% of the profits from the nationalized diamond mines in country).
I think the real question is, perhaps it is okay for such PMCs to hire themselves off to nations such as Sierra Leone or Liberia or Iraq... but what happens if they are hired by the Sudanesse? Or Syria? Or Myanmar? Were the forces of Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia in the early 90's thugs and murderers, or where they hired mercenaries fighting for the "wrong side"? I'm not talking about the drug-addicted children he had running around the streets of Mogadishu with rifles as tall as they were... I'm talking about the two- or three-dozen Eastern European, Soviet-trained professionals he had employed as his personal bodyguards and advisers. How does any rational human being NOT conclude that it was the efforts of THESE men that helped Aidid beat the Somali government, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, and the United States Army so badly that ALL THREE had to leave the country... and not the efforts of the drug-sodden, displaced farmers and herders that made up the bulk of his forces?
Here's another example: Let's say that Obama would call for the full and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq in the next four months. By July, not ONE US military personnel would be supporting the Iraqi Defense Force. Iraq then chooses to retain the services of a PMC to ensure that their military and security training is adequate to keep up with Iranian, Syrian and al Queida insurgent forces entering the country with the express purpose of destabilizing the government in favor of a radical extremist regime. Would the Iraqis be wrong for doing this? Would the people hired be "criminal thugs"? Should those men be recognized as legitimate military forces operating under the authority of the Iraqi government?
I say YES, they would be legit... a necessity, in fact.
Your question about whether or not they are a legitimate recognized military force, or are they simply "enemy combatants" who happen to be fighting on our side in most of the places listed above is a damn good one. Had you asked me 5 or more years ago, I'd have said flat-out that they were not legitimate... they were mercenaries for hire with no one to answer to when they made "mistakes".
But, the line between "hired thug" and "professional soldier" blurs a bit now, if the only requirement for the latter is fighting for an established government. Every one of the governments listed above were officially recognized by the US as sovereign elected governments, and how they choose to develop and shape their individual defense and security forces is totally up to them. How many of these governments did not have the means (or the time) to recruit, train, equip and field regular standing forces for the defense of a government that the US recognizes as "legit"? A shockingly good example of the kind of brutality that these forces face can be found in the book A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah. 12 years old and forced to fight for the government forces of Sierra Leone, the story is a heartbreaking tale of tragedy and brutality that shows just how quickly things can get impossibly complicated for small, poor but legitimate governments with almost no means of production but substantial amounts of cash (Sierra Leone retains as much as 54% of the profits from the nationalized diamond mines in country).
I think the real question is, perhaps it is okay for such PMCs to hire themselves off to nations such as Sierra Leone or Liberia or Iraq... but what happens if they are hired by the Sudanesse? Or Syria? Or Myanmar? Were the forces of Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia in the early 90's thugs and murderers, or where they hired mercenaries fighting for the "wrong side"? I'm not talking about the drug-addicted children he had running around the streets of Mogadishu with rifles as tall as they were... I'm talking about the two- or three-dozen Eastern European, Soviet-trained professionals he had employed as his personal bodyguards and advisers. How does any rational human being NOT conclude that it was the efforts of THESE men that helped Aidid beat the Somali government, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, and the United States Army so badly that ALL THREE had to leave the country... and not the efforts of the drug-sodden, displaced farmers and herders that made up the bulk of his forces?
Here's another example: Let's say that Obama would call for the full and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq in the next four months. By July, not ONE US military personnel would be supporting the Iraqi Defense Force. Iraq then chooses to retain the services of a PMC to ensure that their military and security training is adequate to keep up with Iranian, Syrian and al Queida insurgent forces entering the country with the express purpose of destabilizing the government in favor of a radical extremist regime. Would the Iraqis be wrong for doing this? Would the people hired be "criminal thugs"? Should those men be recognized as legitimate military forces operating under the authority of the Iraqi government?
I say YES, they would be legit... a necessity, in fact.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Most call them Mercenaries, I call them professional soldiers
I was pondering an earlier post when we were discussing Blackwater and I thought I would chime in here and ask the question. Are they illegal combatants or are they professional soldiers that happen to be for hire to legitimate governments for security purposes? (I left that wide open on purpose)
If you go back in recent history you will find a series of civil wars in Africa where legitimate private military companies have been able to accomplish for the government what they couldn't do for themselves. ( I know already..I will give specific examples) I'm doing this so Ryan will stop giving me crap for not posting anything of any substance.
The year was 1995 and the civil war was in Sierra Leon. Executive Outcome was a company based out of South Africa comprised of former South African Defense Force Commandos and Special Forces types. The legitimate government was on the verge of being overthrown by a group called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The military was corrupt and incapable of protecting the government or its citizens from the RUF so they contracted with Executive Outcomes to do the job. Executive Outcomes provided the personnel and Sierra Leon's government provided the arms necessary for them to do the job. With 300 men, 1 Mi-24 Hind, 2 MI-8 Hips and a BMP-2 APC they forced a negotiated peace in less than a year and brought stability to the country. Unfortunately this story does not have a happy ending. You'll never guess what happened...the UN got involved. Led by the US the UN security council pounced and 300 private military personnel were replaced by 30,000 UN Blue Helmets and the country fell into disarray once again. This is once again where truth is stranger than fiction, it really happened.
Should these organizations be labeled as a bad thing or should we welcome the expertise that these personnel posess to help end bloodshed when noone else can? Would have been nice to have something like Executive Outcome in Rowanda.
If you go back in recent history you will find a series of civil wars in Africa where legitimate private military companies have been able to accomplish for the government what they couldn't do for themselves. ( I know already..I will give specific examples) I'm doing this so Ryan will stop giving me crap for not posting anything of any substance.
The year was 1995 and the civil war was in Sierra Leon. Executive Outcome was a company based out of South Africa comprised of former South African Defense Force Commandos and Special Forces types. The legitimate government was on the verge of being overthrown by a group called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The military was corrupt and incapable of protecting the government or its citizens from the RUF so they contracted with Executive Outcomes to do the job. Executive Outcomes provided the personnel and Sierra Leon's government provided the arms necessary for them to do the job. With 300 men, 1 Mi-24 Hind, 2 MI-8 Hips and a BMP-2 APC they forced a negotiated peace in less than a year and brought stability to the country. Unfortunately this story does not have a happy ending. You'll never guess what happened...the UN got involved. Led by the US the UN security council pounced and 300 private military personnel were replaced by 30,000 UN Blue Helmets and the country fell into disarray once again. This is once again where truth is stranger than fiction, it really happened.
Should these organizations be labeled as a bad thing or should we welcome the expertise that these personnel posess to help end bloodshed when noone else can? Would have been nice to have something like Executive Outcome in Rowanda.
Let's talk about failures...
Ryan wants to talk about something we can all AGREE on, so let me outline in clear and concise terms what I feel is the FAILING of the new "stimulus bill"...
For "stimulus" to work on a national level, any "relief" the government may try to offer should only provide for the most basic of needs (food, water, and shelter where it doesn't exist at all... as in the height of the such disasters as Katrina, Hugo, Camile, the Great Depression, or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake)... otherwise, it should focus solely on "recovery".
For the government to effect recovery, it needs to find a way to provide the economy with an outlet for its products and labor. In other words, it needs to become a CONSUMER, not a PROVIDER. Deficit spending in the immediate sense of the words to maintain the economic cycle when the free market isn't able to do it is a GOOD THING.
For example: If US automakers can't manage to pay their costs because they aren't selling cars, and they take $33 billion dollars in funds to see them through, then the Feds should give them the money. They should THEN make the purchase of every NEW car made by that manufacturer 100% deductible from the buyers next year's taxes... because it was the TAX PAYER that bailed out the automaker... via the Feds. The buyer gets his new car, the bank gets its loan and interest earnings, the automaker moves another vehicle off the factory floor, and the government watches the $33 billion deficit evaporate in only 14 months, while still knowing they saved American jobs and businesses in the process.
THAT is Keynesian economics at work, my friends... and it would work, but not even the GOP would back such a plan. WHY?
What about jobs, you ask? Let's say that the Federal government falls back on the tried and true "public works" program. Perhaps they look to cities and rural areas that won't support a bond issue for new or improved school buildings because the economy won't allow the population to pay the increased property taxes. They hire the needed construction personnel and build or improve the schools, putting about 100,000 people to work, and contracting ONLY the architects and highly-skilled positions out. Everyone else is entry level... perhaps young and out-of-work, or just out of school, or laid off from some other sector... and works the job KNOWING it will only last between 18 and 36 months. These people now have an applicable and marketable skill that can see them into a promising career, the community/city/region has a new or improved school, and the Feds have provided labor, planning and financing to keep taxes low until such time as they can be raised to payback the Feds through reasonable tax increases... probably paid by the very people that BUILT the schools.
What we have today in our new "stimulus" bill is a long list of the unfullfilled wishes of the Democratic Party for the last 12 years, all rolled into one BIG spending package. That is the key phrase, for me: SPENDING. Even as a Democrat, I KNOW that spending doesn't equal RELIEF or RECOVERY... no matter WHAT Ryan might say. We could spend another TRILLION dollars, and it wouldn't do a damn thing to the economy, if the money was spent on non-recoverable or non-reusable items and programs. Adding an additional $1 billion to the US Census budget does not stimulate the economy, because there is nothing to show for the money spent once the census is completed. $1 billion spend on roads, or schools, or power plants, or railroads, or manufacturing and production outlets is stimulus, because the results provide the means to pay for themselves given only time and a fair market.
Is anyone going to fight with me over this?
For "stimulus" to work on a national level, any "relief" the government may try to offer should only provide for the most basic of needs (food, water, and shelter where it doesn't exist at all... as in the height of the such disasters as Katrina, Hugo, Camile, the Great Depression, or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake)... otherwise, it should focus solely on "recovery".
For the government to effect recovery, it needs to find a way to provide the economy with an outlet for its products and labor. In other words, it needs to become a CONSUMER, not a PROVIDER. Deficit spending in the immediate sense of the words to maintain the economic cycle when the free market isn't able to do it is a GOOD THING.
For example: If US automakers can't manage to pay their costs because they aren't selling cars, and they take $33 billion dollars in funds to see them through, then the Feds should give them the money. They should THEN make the purchase of every NEW car made by that manufacturer 100% deductible from the buyers next year's taxes... because it was the TAX PAYER that bailed out the automaker... via the Feds. The buyer gets his new car, the bank gets its loan and interest earnings, the automaker moves another vehicle off the factory floor, and the government watches the $33 billion deficit evaporate in only 14 months, while still knowing they saved American jobs and businesses in the process.
THAT is Keynesian economics at work, my friends... and it would work, but not even the GOP would back such a plan. WHY?
What about jobs, you ask? Let's say that the Federal government falls back on the tried and true "public works" program. Perhaps they look to cities and rural areas that won't support a bond issue for new or improved school buildings because the economy won't allow the population to pay the increased property taxes. They hire the needed construction personnel and build or improve the schools, putting about 100,000 people to work, and contracting ONLY the architects and highly-skilled positions out. Everyone else is entry level... perhaps young and out-of-work, or just out of school, or laid off from some other sector... and works the job KNOWING it will only last between 18 and 36 months. These people now have an applicable and marketable skill that can see them into a promising career, the community/city/region has a new or improved school, and the Feds have provided labor, planning and financing to keep taxes low until such time as they can be raised to payback the Feds through reasonable tax increases... probably paid by the very people that BUILT the schools.
What we have today in our new "stimulus" bill is a long list of the unfullfilled wishes of the Democratic Party for the last 12 years, all rolled into one BIG spending package. That is the key phrase, for me: SPENDING. Even as a Democrat, I KNOW that spending doesn't equal RELIEF or RECOVERY... no matter WHAT Ryan might say. We could spend another TRILLION dollars, and it wouldn't do a damn thing to the economy, if the money was spent on non-recoverable or non-reusable items and programs. Adding an additional $1 billion to the US Census budget does not stimulate the economy, because there is nothing to show for the money spent once the census is completed. $1 billion spend on roads, or schools, or power plants, or railroads, or manufacturing and production outlets is stimulus, because the results provide the means to pay for themselves given only time and a fair market.
Is anyone going to fight with me over this?
Our next President
As unwilling as I am at this particular moment to agree with anything Ryan might say, I can't but second his opinion of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA).
If this man isn't the next President of the United States, then the GOP really is a dead party and should simply dry up and blow away. He was derided by members of his own party for not being "good enough" in his response to Obama's speech... but he wasn't in front of the entire Congress, getting standing ovations and applause at every pause in his speech. Obama had days to have his presentation polished and refined, he had 30 minutes.
He is hated by the Left because he is "ultra-conservative"... but that isn't true either. I have heard him speak twice in the last 24 hours, and in the second (a radio interview) he repeatedly said that his is in FAVOR of a stimulus package, and understands the need for increased government spending. What he opposes is increased Federal CONTROL of issues that individual STATES should maintain. This man understands the importance of Keynesian economics in a way that even Reagan can't claim. Temporary increases in Federal spending in areas where national infrastructure gains from the money is a GOOD THING, and when that spending is brought to an end, the private sector picks up where the Feds left off, making profits/jobs/expansion/development the realm of the mainsteam economy once again. He understands the importance of lowering taxes to maximize private-sector investment and participation... and the need of paying off debts incurred by the government when the economy is stronger by slowing growth through either spending cuts or reasonable tax increases.
This man is born and raised in Louisianna, and knows all too well the failings of the Long administration during the 30's... he has demonstrated this by offering MORE tax cuts in his short tenure as Governor than have been made in the last TWO administrations combined. LA is the ONLY State in the Union to have seen jobs GROW in the last 12 months... and all that coming from a budget that shaved $840 million dollars in pork off its pages. The man has even had the audacity to REFUSE (on behalf of his State) nearly $200 million in Federal stimulus dollars because it would create permanent changes in LA budgetary laws... but will lose Federal funding in less than four years, thus creating a new burden on the LA tax payer. This year's Mardi Gras was the safest on record (even with a public shooting at a parade) and the crowds in New Orleans were the biggest since the storm.
His message is simple, straight-forward and proven to work... yet his own Party won't even get behind him when he makes an opposition speech! What is going on here???
This is the state of the "conservative movement" in America today... divided and confused, and ready to sell its collective soul to maintain some semblance of power.
If this man isn't the next President of the United States, then the GOP really is a dead party and should simply dry up and blow away. He was derided by members of his own party for not being "good enough" in his response to Obama's speech... but he wasn't in front of the entire Congress, getting standing ovations and applause at every pause in his speech. Obama had days to have his presentation polished and refined, he had 30 minutes.
He is hated by the Left because he is "ultra-conservative"... but that isn't true either. I have heard him speak twice in the last 24 hours, and in the second (a radio interview) he repeatedly said that his is in FAVOR of a stimulus package, and understands the need for increased government spending. What he opposes is increased Federal CONTROL of issues that individual STATES should maintain. This man understands the importance of Keynesian economics in a way that even Reagan can't claim. Temporary increases in Federal spending in areas where national infrastructure gains from the money is a GOOD THING, and when that spending is brought to an end, the private sector picks up where the Feds left off, making profits/jobs/expansion/development the realm of the mainsteam economy once again. He understands the importance of lowering taxes to maximize private-sector investment and participation... and the need of paying off debts incurred by the government when the economy is stronger by slowing growth through either spending cuts or reasonable tax increases.
This man is born and raised in Louisianna, and knows all too well the failings of the Long administration during the 30's... he has demonstrated this by offering MORE tax cuts in his short tenure as Governor than have been made in the last TWO administrations combined. LA is the ONLY State in the Union to have seen jobs GROW in the last 12 months... and all that coming from a budget that shaved $840 million dollars in pork off its pages. The man has even had the audacity to REFUSE (on behalf of his State) nearly $200 million in Federal stimulus dollars because it would create permanent changes in LA budgetary laws... but will lose Federal funding in less than four years, thus creating a new burden on the LA tax payer. This year's Mardi Gras was the safest on record (even with a public shooting at a parade) and the crowds in New Orleans were the biggest since the storm.
His message is simple, straight-forward and proven to work... yet his own Party won't even get behind him when he makes an opposition speech! What is going on here???
This is the state of the "conservative movement" in America today... divided and confused, and ready to sell its collective soul to maintain some semblance of power.
The end of the New Deal debate...
You are 100% correct, the New Deal failed utterly... and I'm tired of rehashing the same points over and over again, simply to make a point you cannot or will not see.
This topic is anathema, and will not be discussed again.
This topic is anathema, and will not be discussed again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
