Monthly Archives: March 2013

National Defense in Obama’s Second Term

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Jon Kyl (R, AZ (Ret)) outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed what we can see and expect from President Barack Obama during his second term.  It isn’t pretty.  On missile defense, Obama is doing this [emphasis added]:

  • The president is on course to systematically reduce America’s capabilities in both areas despite specific commitments he made while securing bipartisan support for the 2010 New Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Russia.
  • [Adding 14 ground-based interceptors in Alaska only] gets us back to the numerical level planned during the Bush administration—and without the technological improvements in ground-based interceptors, or GBIs, that the Bush administration supported.
  • US national missile defense will continue to rely on obsolete 1980s “kill vehicle” technology involving kinetic energy and small warheads.  At 44 GBIs, the system should be effective against the current threat from North Korea, but not against an attack from countries like Russia and China with more robust and mature capabilities.
  • US has canceled the final phase of the Europe-based missile-defense system, which was to have included NATO allies such as Poland as the hosts of sensors and other elements of the system. This will please Russia.
  • [T]he Aegis system the Navy uses to track enemy missiles and guide American ones will be less capable of protecting Europe—from Iran, for instance—and offer even less protection for the U.S. The assurance of deploying the final phase of missile defense in Europe was the Obama administration’s pretext for capping the improvement of America’s GBI system.

On strategic deterrent, Obama is doing this to our triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and bomber fleet [emphasis added]:

  • Russia is preparing to field a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (one type of which can carry as many as 15 warheads); Obama is still studying whether to develop its own modernized ICBMs.
  • Replacement of the Ohio-class nuclear-ballistic-missile submarine—the foundation of the sea-based leg of the triad—has been delayed for two years, leaving the force with only 10 boats.
  • No decision has been made on whether the next generation strategic-bomber force will even be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
  • Energy Department and National Security Agency five-year budgets for modernization have been cut by some $4.4 billion.  That’s the same amount Obama had agreed to add to secure Senate support for the New Start treaty in 2010.
  • The building of a modern Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility for handling plutonium—critical to modernization and added to the Treaty Resolution of Ratification and in the president’s message to the Senate upon entry of the treaty into force—has been delayed at least five years—tantamount to killing it.

As Kyl puts it,

President Obama’s antipathy to both missile defense and our nuclear deterrent risks leaving the U.S. and its allies vulnerable not just to attack, but also to nuclear blackmail and proliferation.

This is a national disaster waiting to reverse the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Why Are We Not Surprised?

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrat-controlled Senate Thursday night voted down the House-passed budget that reached zero deficit by 2023.  Then they voted up their own budget, which doesn’t even pretend to try to reach balance, instead adding $7 trillion more to our existing debt over those 10 years.

Via Power Line we learn that Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) offered an amendment to the Senate Budget Committee’s bill as it was being debated on the Senate floor.  Sessions’ amendment, as all of these ought to be, was short, and to the point:

Mr. Sessions moves to commit S Con Res 8 back to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report back no later than March 22, 2013 with such changes as may be necessary to achieve unified budget balance by fiscal year 2023.

From Senator Mike Lee’s (R, UT) office, we get a compilation of the statements of 23 Democratic Senators with the gist of their comments explicitly supported a balanced budget amendment.  One has retired since his statement, and two were defeated in the 2012 reelection process.  The remaining 20 are below:

SENATOR SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SENATOR MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing – balance the budget.” (SENATOR Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (SENATOR Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment’s very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (SENATOR Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SENATOR MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I’ve long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (SENATOR Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. SENATOR Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post, 3/6/11)

SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” “…responding to a question of why the federal government can’t have a balanced budget amendment…” SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SENATOR TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (SENATOR Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (SENATOR Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…” (SENATOR Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (SENATOR Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again…” (SENATOR Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SENATOR TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I’ve been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SENATOR MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (SENATOR Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

SENATOR JON TESTER (D-MT): “It’s absolutely critical.” “My folks did not teach me to not have a fiscal balanced budget. It’s absolutely critical… Because I am of the belief that you take care of your own self and you don’t pass your debts on to your kids… Let’s be fiscally responsible. Let’s have a fiscally balanced budget.” (Montana Senate Debate, 6/25/06)

“Jon Tester will lead efforts to balance the federal budget…” (“Real Change, Real Vision For Montana Plan,” Jon Tester Website, Accessed 7/14/11)

Tester Spokesman: “Of course Jon supports a balanced budget…” (“Rehberg Chides Tester Over Budget-Balancing Vote,” Billings Gazette, 3/3/11)

SENATOR BOB CASEY (D-PA): “I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business.” MR. RUSSERT: “Let me find out how you would implement something that you’re promising the voters of Pennsylvania. Here’s a Casey campaign ad about our budget.” (Videotape, Bob Casey campaign ad): MR. CASEY: “I believe in a balanced budget. Government should live within its means, like any small business.” MR. RUSSERT: “How would you get a balanced budget?” MR. CASEY: “It’s not easy, Tim, but here are the steps we should take. First of all, when it comes to the budget, what’s missing principally is a lack of fiscal responsibility, you know that. We’ve gone from about two, 236 of, of surplus down to 296 in deficit. We need some fiscal discipline.” (Pennsylvania Senate Debate, “Meet The Press,” 9/3/06)

They’re for a balanced budget amendment, but they won’t hold out for a budget that balances…sometime?  Liars all, save Manchin, who was the only one of the crowd above to vote for the Sessions amendment.  If only half of these were worthy of their word, this bill would have been sent back for work.  And we keep reelecting these…fools.

Shame on us.

A Thought on Cypress and the Euro

Posted on by
Reply

After having offered his church’s assets to a solidarity fund proposed by Cyprus’ government pursuant to Cyprus’ efforts to find a way out of their current economic debacle, Archbishop Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and All Cyprus (the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus), has one.  The Guardian quotes him:

The euro cannot last.  I’m not saying that it will crumble tomorrow, but with the brains that they have in Brussels, it is certain that it will not last in the long term, and the best is to think about how to escape it.  It’s not easy, but we should devote as much time to this as was spent on entering the eurozone.

The Orthodox church is the island’s biggest landowner, and it has serious investments in a broad range of endeavors—from hotels and construction to a brewery, to a majority stake in Cyprus’ third largest bank, Hellenic Bank (right behind Laiki Bank (Popular Bank) and the Bank of Cyprus, the former of which would be seized by the government and reorganized under a version of Plan B, and the latter of which is just as insolvent and needs reorganization).  Chrysostomos’ opinions are worth listening to far beyond his position as Cyprus’ moral leader.

I agree with the Archbishop.  It’s a bad fit, Cyprus and the European Union, Cyprus and the euro zone, as has been written elsewhere.

The badness of fit has now been demonstrated, by a midnight deal between the eurozone Finance Ministers and Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades.  The deal, according to Spiegel Online International:

…focused on the island’s two insolvent major banks.  It will wind down the largely state-owned Popular Bank of Cyprus, also known as Laiki, and shift deposits below €100,000 [$130,000] to the Bank of Cyprus.

Deposits above €100,000 euros in both banks, which are not guaranteed under EU law, will be frozen and used to resolve Laiki’s debts and to recapitalise Bank of Cyprus through a deposit/equity conversion.

[Euro Group (the finance ministers of the eurozone acting together) President Jeroen] Dijsselbloem says that

[t]he raid [that’s exactly the right word] on uninsured Laiki depositors is expected to raise €4.2 billion [$5.5 billion].

There’s more extortion and theft to come.  The takings inflicted on large depositors—those holding deposits greater than €100,000—will be determined at a later date by the Cypriot government and the troika.  Those €4.2 billion represent the target for recapitalization and bank debt resolution; the “tax” on those deposits required to achieve the target has yet to be determined.

And, because this setup is being handled as a bank restructuring and Cyprus’ Parliament had already passed a bank restructuring law that allows it during a panicky weekend session prior to this…arrangement, the Parliament cannot now block it, as it did the original raid.

It’ll be interesting to see where the Russians put their money in the aftermath of this.  It’ll be interesting to see where any large depositor, or any other depositor with the capacity (which includes most middle class folks and small/medium businesses) puts his money, now that Cyprus has been banished from the international financial center business.  The little man—those with the small deposits—have no choice.

It’ll also be interesting to see who in the rest of the eurozone or the broader EU profits from this.

SOI suggests that in the end, Anastasiades had no option but to accept to these terms.  This, though, is to misunderstand what has happened and to misunderstand the immorality of it.  This is just government theft of private money from folks—depositors—who had nothing to do with the decisions of the bankers and government functionaries that put Cyprus in this box in the first place.

Anastasiades indeed had a choice.  He could have accepted bankruptcy and the (painful) recovery of a Cyprus then free of EU and eurozone restrictions on Cypriot sovereignty.  And free of exposure of his country’s banking system to international distrust from fear that the next time it becomes convenient to government, the next batch of deposits will be similarly confiscated.  The banks in the rest of the eurozone, if not of the EU at large, must face this distrust today, especially since the original demand by the Euro Group was to confiscate significant portions of the little man’s deposits, also.

Cyprus needs to listen to the Archbishop.

Another Look at the Senate Democrats’ Budget

Posted on by
Reply

The Heritage Foundation has looked at it.  As has already been pointed out, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray’s (D, WA) budget has little good in it; although it does preserve the sequester cuts in their magnitude and general allocation.  However.

Cynically, it raises taxes on Americans—and amazingly, on our businesses, which already are subject to the highest rates in the world—by a shade over $1.5 trillion.  This isn’t new, but their budget is worse than originally thought.  The Democrats’ guess (and I use that term advisedly) of getting $155 billion per year over the next 10 years is based on their erroneous static analysis.  A dynamic analysis, which includes the actual and ongoing effects of taking this much money out of the economy, indicates that this “budget” would only get $88 billion per year.  Heritage’s graph below illustrates the year-by-year revenue flow.                                          

This only exacerbates the impact of the Democrats’ continued increases in spending on our debt and on our economy.  Their 5% increase in spending, in every year of those same 10 years, increases the Federal budget deficit, and it contributes to a continued explosion in our national debt—to the tune of $7 trillion more added to an already ruinous level.

But that’s all to the good, anyway, right?  The Democrats say so.  The Senate Republicans have a different analysis.  Overall, they point out that this budget would

  • Lower GDP by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
  • Cut job growth by an average of 853,000 jobs each year.
  • Slash after-tax incomes by $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  • Shrink household income by $1,512 per year.

They also look on a state-by-state basis, and the outcome is clear and even starker (it’s important to note here that the state-by-state analysis was done by the Senate Budget Committee’s staff economists, not by Republican staffers).  Here are the outcomes for, oh, say, California and Texas.

California:

For the state of California these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

Texas:

For the state of Texas these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

There are no states—none—in which the Budget Committee’s staff economists projected gains in personal income, household disposable income, or job opportunities.  Every state suffers losses as a result of this Democrat budget.

This is Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another case of government’s men who should know better, not knowing.

From the New Jersey Law Journal comes a description of a court considering the (mis)use of one law to feed the impact of another.  Sorry about the paywall; here’s a summary [emphasis added].

COURT TO DECIDE IF SEAT BELT LAPSE CAN SUPPORT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether violation of the 1984 law that made seat belt wearing mandatory can support a criminal conviction under another statute.  To be reviewed is an appeals court holding that not wearing a seat belt can be a predicate offense for N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18, which criminalizes “knowingly violat[ing] a law intended to protect the public health and safety” through reckless conduct that injures another.  In State v. Lenihan, A-4667-10, the Appellate Division found the statute’s language gives no indication the Legislature would object to how it is being applied in this case, where the unbelted driver’s passenger was killed.

Leaving aside the question of how far a court—or any other government branch—should reach in order to criminalize an activity, giving no indication of objection is not the same as positively approving.

The principle embedded in our Federal Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments is this: negatively, enumeration in the Constitution does not limit or deny the not-enumerated to the people, and positively, powers not delegated to the United States are, in their remaining infinite entirety, left wholly to the States and to the people.  Moreover, these Amendments are to a Constitution that was written by We the People—an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the members of our social compact over the government we members, we citizens, hire to administer and to protect our rights.

If that principle is valid, though, it’s valid everywhere.  The citizens of each State of these United States are sovereign over each of their State governments, also.  Hence, here, too, positive action must be taken to proscribe a thing.  Absent active proscription, that thing must remain within the province of the individual, either acting alone or in concert with (some of) his fellows, to do or not do.

Thus, unless the New Jersey (or any other State) legislature definitively states, in the present case for instance, that not using a seat belt criminalizes other behavior under other law, it cannot be so used by a court.