Sunday, February 01, 2009

Karl's Weekend Reading

What a week for Rush Limbaugh! Let's start our weekend reading list with his ingenious bipartisan plan. Why aren't the Republican's getting on board with this? Why aren't the Democrats?? If adopted, both parties would feel they were only wasting half of the total. Unless... one party knows their preference creates fiscal failure and dependence, thus leading to re-election. WSJ, My Bipartisan Stimulus.

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

Two related blog posts:
Doug Ross lists the details of the $819 billion stimulus pork bill, and
Sweetness & Light convey's the bill's support from the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA).

Oliver North reacts to Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya in his Townhall article, and the administration's lowered expectations in Afghanistan, Troubling Talk.

Unfortunately, the Al-Arabiya interview isn't the only troubling talk coming from the Obama administration that could well leave members of our all-volunteer force wondering just what is expected of them. In congressional testimony this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that even though Afghanistan is the new commander in chief's "top priority," we also "ought to keep our objectives realistic and limited in Afghanistan."

I have spent my life in and around our military. Everyone I ever have known in our armed forces has believed in "realistic" missions and goals. But I've yet to meet a man or woman in uniform who is willing to sacrifice all for "respect," a "partnership" or a "limited objective."

John Bolton, former UN Abassador and owner of our Commie Obama hat, discusses the State Department's lack of interest in North Korea's nuclear program. WSJ, Now Is No Time to Downplay North Korea.

Most troubling is Mrs. Clinton's unwillingness to acknowledge North Korea's uranium-enrichment efforts. In her confirmation hearing, she said these efforts were "never quite verified." Although we know precious little about the North's progress, including how much weapons-grade uranium may have been produced, Mrs. Clinton cast doubt on whether uranium enrichment was a serious subject at all. Pressed on this point on Jan. 23 at State's daily briefing, the department spokesman said "we don't know" whether such a program exists.

Of course, the easiest way to solve a difficult problem is to conclude there really isn't one. (This was John Kennedy's technique for eliminating the U.S. "missile gap" with the Soviet Union, which he had deployed so effectively against Richard Nixon.) For years, State's permanent bureaucracy has been trying to wish away North Korea's uranium-enrichment program. If President Barack Obama's State Department takes this strategy, Pyongyang will once again have occasion to contemplate the profound wisdom of the ancient North Korean riddle: Why negotiate with the Americans when we do so well by letting them negotiate with themselves?

No comments: