An Arms Race

And we should welcome it.

Russia is creating three new divisions to counter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s planned expansion along its eastern flank, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday, in a move that comes amid rising tensions in the region.

Moscow has threatened it will respond to NATO plans to boost its troops’ presence along its border with Russia.  Western officials said last week the alliance will send four battalions—about 4,000 troops—to Poland and the ex-Soviet Baltic countries.

These three divisions are being created, in part, by adding men and equipment, and they’re being created, in part, by reassigning men and equipment from existing units.  It’s the latter that’s instructive.

With the Russian economy in shambles—among other shortfalls, it needs oil priced above $100, remember, the ruble still is in the tank, and inflation remains high and growing—it can ill-afford the expansion on which it’s embarking.  In addition to these “new” divisions, Russia is spending its money on modernizing its military, developing and deploying nuclear weapons near the Baltics and Poland (since before it began creating these three divisions), supporting its occupation forces in Georgia and Ukraine, and on and on.  Although Russia certainly can sustain its buildup for a time, it can’t go on indefinitely.

We should welcome this arms race.  We should accelerate our technological developments and production.  We should answer those three divisions with further deployments into eastern Europe, with an expansion of our Baltic fleet (which we should move deeper into the eastern reaches of the Baltic Sea), and with arms transfers and sales to Ukraine and Georgia.  Every buildup by Russia should be answered with a bigger, more technologically capable one by us.

The Soviet Union couldn’t sustain its arms race; neither can Russia.  It will take an administration different from the current one or its potential Progressive-Democratic successor to engage, though.

Federal Bailout “Prevention”

Asset managers such as Pacific Investment Management Co look set to lose hard-fought protections against the cost of a bank failure, when the Federal Reserve on Tuesday proposes yet another rule aimed at preventing taxpayer bailouts for financial firms.

How disingenuous does this sort of administration get?  No rules are needed to prevent taxpayer bailouts for financial firms, or any other enterprise, government (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, for instance) or private.  There’s no need for preventing what ought not exist in the first place; there’s only need for firing politicians and bureaucrats who keep trying for taxpayer bailouts.

Free Speech PRC-Style

Chinese authorities are training their sights on a new set of targets: economists, analysts and business reporters with gloomy views on China’s economy.

Securities regulators, media censors and other government officials have issued verbal warnings to commentators whose public remarks on the economy are out of step with the government’s upbeat statements….

And

Early this year, Mr Xi [Jinping] visited the country’s three big state news organizations—Xinhua, the People’s Daily and China Central Television—to lecture them on the need to toe the party line, “tell China’s stories well” and enhance the nation’s influence in the world.

But, of course.  Can’t have truth conflict with Party.  After all, “truth” means that 2 + 2 will be 5 whenever the situation warrants.

Obamacare Strikes Yet Again

Insurers will seek significant premium hikes under President Barack Obama’s health care law this summer….
…
For example, in Virginia, a state that reports early, nine insurers returning to the HealthCare.gov marketplace are seeking average premium increases that range from 9.4% to 37.1%.

And

The health law’s nagging problems center on lower-than-hoped-for enrollment, sicker-than-expected customers, and a balky internal stabilization system that didn’t deliver as advertised and was already scheduled to be pared back next year.

Who is truly surprised by this?  Oh, yeah….

Market Choice?

Can’t have that.

The Obama administration is locked and loaded for a fresh push on gun control initiatives—reportedly moving to advocate for so-called “smart gun” technology….

Smart gun technology research may well be a good idea, and having smart guns—weapons that can be fired only by their legitimate owners—certainly seems like a good idea.

Even Government involvement in funding basic research—the secrets of the universe kind of thing—or doing its own basic research might be a good idea.

However, Government involvement in engineering research, which smart gun tech development surely is, and Government involvement in determining, or even merely jawboning, what products it wants in a free market most assuredly are not legitimate.

These are matters for private citizens, private enterprise, and the market place to determine.

Full stop.