► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Friday with the ‘hammer – An Unserious President

by Mojambo ( 185 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Elections 2012, Misery Index, Politics, Regulation, unemployment at July 8th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Obama is playing politics with our economic future, trying to stall the coming implosion until after the gets reelected before we become another Argentina. By the time 2016, he will have his policies permanently in place.  Personally I would like to kick his can down the road.

by Charles Krauthammer

Here we go again. An approaching crisis. A looming deadline. Nervous markets. And then, from the miasma of gridlock, rises our president, calling upon those unruly congressional children to quit squabbling, stop kicking the can down the road and get serious about debt.

This from the man who:

Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the word “debt” until 35 minutes in.

Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.

Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

President Obama assailed the lesser mortals who inhabit Congress for not having seriously dealt with a problem he had not dealt with at all, then scolded Congress for being even less responsible than his own children. They apparently get their homework done on time.

My compliments. But the Republican House did do its homework. It’s called a budget. It passed the House on April 15. The Democratic Senate has produced no budget. Not just this year, but for two years running. As for the schoolmaster in chief, he produced two 2012 budget facsimiles: The first (February) was a farce and the second (April) was empty, dismissed by the CBO as nothing but words untethered to real numbers.

Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1.5 trillion while insisting for months on a “clean” debt-ceiling increase, i.e., with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.

The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012.

A clever strategy it is: Do nothing (see above); invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do — voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform — demagogue them to death.

And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So: First you get the GOP to seize the left’s third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right’s third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full-spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

[….]

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama’s other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama’s deficit spending for February 2011.

[…..]

Read the rest – The Elmendorf Rule

Friday with the ‘hammer – The unions are owned by the Democrats

by Mojambo ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at June 17th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Private sector unions are destroying jobs in this country, yet they are one of several subsidiary groups of the Democratic Party such as the NAACP and are therefore inviolate.

by Charles Krauthammer

”Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports within five years.

One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don’t like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.

Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He’s demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It’s an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers. (A deal reportedly may be near. But the years of delay have been costly. Colombia, for example, is negotiating broad trade deals with China, including a possible Chinese-built railway to bypass the Panama Canal.)

Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama’s campaign team wants.

But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.

[…]

Read the rest: The union-owned Democrats

Friday with the ‘hammer – An election about stewardship

by Mojambo ( 76 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2010, Elections 2012, Republican Party at June 10th, 2011 - 11:30 am

After making the 2010 election about left-wing ideology, the Republicans need to make the 2012 election about Obama’s incompetence. The terrible economic situation that we are in (and it will probably not get any better soon) gives us a unique opportunity to go right after Obama for being the failure that he really is.

by Charles Krauthammer

The Republicans swept November’s midterm election by making it highly ideological, a referendum on two years of hyper-liberalism – of arrogant, overreaching, intrusive government drowning in debt and running deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. It’s not complicated. To govern left in a center-right country where four out of five citizens are non-liberal is a prescription for electoral defeat.

Which suggested an obvious Republican strategy for 2012: Recapitulate 2010. Keep it ideological. Choose a presidential nominee who can best make the case.

But in the last few weeks, the landscape has changed. For two reasons: NY-26 and the May economic numbers.

Last month, Democrats turned the race for the 26th Congressional District of New York into a referendum on Medicare, and more specifically on the Paul Ryan plan for reforming it. The Republicans lost the seat – after having held it for more than four decades.

Problem was, their candidate was weak, defensive, unschooled and unskilled in dealing with the issue. Republicans have a year to cure that. If they can train their candidates to be just half as fluent as Ryan in defending their Medicare plan, they would be able to neutralize the issue.

But that in and of itself is a tactical victory for Democrats. Republicans are on the defensive. Democratic cynicism has worked. By deciding to do nothing about debt and entitlements, and instead to simply accuse Republicans of tossing granny off a cliff, they have given themselves an issue.

[…]

It’s not that the ideological case against Obama cannot be made. Obamacare with its individual mandate remains unpopular. The near-trillion-dollar stimulus remains an albatross. Even the failed attempt at cap-and-trade – government control of energy pricing – shows Obama’s determination to fundamentally transform America. And he is sure to try again to complete his coveted European-style social-democratic project if you give him four more years.

Medicare has nonetheless partially blunted that line of ideological attack. Yet, just as the Democrats were rejoicing in the fruits of their cynicism, in came the latest economic numbers. They were awful. Housing price declines were the worst since the 1930s. Unemployment rising again. Underemployment disastrously high. And as for chronic unemployment, the average time for finding a new job is now 40 weeks, the highest ever recorded. These numbers gravely undermine Obama’s story line that we’re in a recovery, just a bit slow and bumpy.

[…]

Nonetheless, despite the changed conditions, I would still prefer to see the Republican challenger make 2012 a decisive choice between two distinct visions of government. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation debate about the nature of the welfare state (entitlement versus safety net) and, indeed, of the social contract between citizen and state (e.g., whether Congress can mandate – compel – you to purchase whatever it wills). Let’s finish that debate. Start with Obama’s abysmal stewardship, root it in his out-of-touch social-democratic ideology, and win. That would create the strongest mandate for conservative governance since the Reagan era.

Read the rest: Stewardship? Or Ideology?

Germany’s Role in the Balkans

by 1389AD ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Balkans, Canada, Europe, Germany, History, Special Report, World War II at June 6th, 2011 - 3:50 pm

Small map of Balkans

Originally published on Serbianna.com Jan. 10, 2010

by Stella L. Jatras | It is both ironic and tragic that much of the turmoil in the Balkans is the result of German expansionism and Croatian brutality, but the finger of guilt seems always to point at Serbia.

Serbia continues to get the bulk of the blame from many in academic and media circles for today’s catastrophe in the Balkans. An example is Professor Staric in his recently published book entitled Confronting The Yugoslav Controversies. While attempting to appear even-handed, Prof. Staric clearly shows his anti-Serb bias with statements such as, “After Slovenia and Croatia, which were the most developed republics of the former Yugoslavia, had declared their independence on June 25, 1991, the Serbs did not like to lose their ‘cash cows’,” and “The Serbs (mainly) and Croats have clearly shown that they are unable to live in a multinational State, where each would have equal, and not more, rights than the other constitutive nations, just as the citizens of four nationalities have in Switzerland.”

I would remind the good Professor that prior to our sticking our nose into the business of a sovereign nation, Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and a multi-religion state. Even during the fighting in the 1990s, tens of thousands of Muslims fled to safety in Belgrade. Today, Serbians have no rights in Croatia.

Although it is important to defend Serbs against unjust accusations, it is first necesary to go back to World War II in order to understand Germany’s role in the Balkans when in 1941, Hitler recognized Croatia as an Independent State for being his loyal ally. Over a million Serbs, Jews and Gypsies were exterminated in Croatia’s Ustashe (Nazi) death camps so brutally that even the German Gestapo was appalled. Fast forward. As part of the Maastricht Netherlands Treaty of 1991, Germany pressured European Community (EC) to recognize the independence of Croatia, Germany’s ally in World War II. “From a position where the EC members were 11-to-1 in favor of maintaining the unity of Yugoslavia, Germany succeeded at 4 a.m. in forcing approval for the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as independent states (German and U.S. Involvement in the Balkans, Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications London, 1995). In 1993, Uno Mas Uno, in a report entitled, German Finger In The Yugoslav Crisis, wrote, “Those who believed that defeat in two world war had diminished Germany’s expansionist ambitions were certainly wrong. More than ever before, Germans need territories and they want to expand.” Germany knew that by recognizing Croatia, it would foment a civil war to its advantage. In two world wars, Serbia prevented Germany from gaining access to the Adriatic Sea. It was now payback time.

I hope that in his book, Prof. Staric does more than just, as he claims, “mention” Operation Storm where Croatian forces, according to Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt Col, USAF, in one of his reports, killed 14,000 Serbs in the region of Krajina. It is estimated that over 650,000 Serbs were driven out of Croatia, 250,000 of them ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homes.

From the 1998 Calgary Herald: “MPs listened in silence Monday as a colonel recounted the story of the Canadian army’s biggest firefight since Korea, the 1993 Battle of the Medak pocket, that left the [Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry] troops picking up 16 corpses of murdered civilians and nursing their own wounds.” The atrocities described by Canadian soldiers as perpetrated by Croatian forces against Serbian civilians are too horrific even to list here, only to say, “Days later the Croats turned over 50 bodies.” (The Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 7, 1996). A color photo which accompanied the article showed the leader of the Canadian peacekeepers, with the caption, “Lt. Col Jim Calvin, left, had to calm his outraged soldiers after they discovered the carnage.”

Charles Krauthammer described the events of Krajina in Newsweek (April 5, 1999) as “The largest ethnic cleansing of the entire Balkan wars. Investigators with the war-crimes tribunal in The Hague have concluded that this campaign was carried out with brutality, wanton murder and indiscriminate shelling of civilians….Croatia’s savage ethnic cleansing so demoralized the Serbs that they soon agreed to sign the Dayton peace accord of 1995.”

The Washington Times of 5 September 1995, reported that Croatian soldiers were given heroin or cocaine twice daily in order to help them face up to the horrors of war in reference to the explulsion of Croatian from Krajina. A Croatian soldier, identified only as Davor, stated, “To attack villages, to cut throats and to kill in cold blood you need a strong anesthetic – a shot of heroin or cocaine was ideal.” This report was also substantiated in The Guardian, on 1 September 1995.

The Washington Times of 29 December 1995 also reported that “Croats will ‘kill people for the color of their skin’.” [US Colonel Fontenot, Commandeef of NATO forces in northeastern Bosnia].

This is the same Croatia about which columnist A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times of April 15, wrote: “In World War II, Hitler had no executioners more willing, no ally more passionate, than the fascists of Croatia. They are returning, 50 years later, from what should have been their eternal grave, the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Western Allies who dug that grave with the bodies of their servicemen have the power to stop them, but do not.” This is the same Croatia about which The Washington Times reported (“Pro-Nazi extremism lingers in Croatia, June 15, 1997): “A German tank rolls through a small village, and the peasants rush out, lining the road with their right arms raised in a Nazi salute as they chant “Heil Hitler.” Mobs chase minorities from their homes, kicking them and pelting them with eggs as they flee into the woods. Europe in the 1940s? No. Croatia in the 1990s.”

It is both ironic and tragic that much of the turmoil in the Balkans is the result of German expansionism and Croatian brutality, but the finger of guilt seems always to point at Serbia.