Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

AT THE LATEST ANGEL'S CORNER – READERS SOUND OFF ON THE DEBT CRISIS, THE PRESIDENT, AND AN ECONOMIC PLAN FOR AMERICA

AUGUST 1,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:52 P.M. ET:

ANOTHER ECONOMIC BLOW - Manufacturing in July had its weakest growth in two years.  To economists, that indicates that the economy may well weaken this summer.  Countries that succeed are countries that make things.  Advancing an economy is always linked to manufacturing.  Our reason at Urgent Agenda for worrying about cuts in the defense budget is primarily concern for our national survival.  But, secondarily and importantly, defense contributes mightily to the economy.  Keeping those production lines open for planes, ships, vehicles and equipment means good-paying jobs for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people.  Will someone tell Washington?

WARMTH AMONG BROTHERS – Muamar Gadaffi has expressed warm and sincere thanks for the support he's gotten from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during the NATO assault on the Gadaffi regime.  There is today a strong link between Venezuela and some of the world's worst anti-American dictators, like Gadaffi and the mullahs of Iran.  And yet this seems to concern Washington very little if at all.  As America weakens, it is more than possible that Venezuela can become a major base for anti-American operations south of our border, as Castro's Cuba has been.  Of course, Chavez also has the enthusiastic support of a number of Hollywood actors, but at least they don't trade in nuclear weapons, despite their talent for making bombs.

CHILDLIKE, OR EVIL? – It was bad enough for the people of Norway to undergo a horrible terrorist attack that took the lives of so many Norwegians, mostly children.  But the behavior of the Norwegian government in the aftermath has been disgraceful, taking no responsibility for failure to protect its citizens – the first job of a government – and lecturing the immediate world on Norway's moral superiority, while wagging fingers at those who question the reckless immigration policies in much of Europe, including Norway.  This morning the Norwegian prime minister gave another moral lecture aimed at the questioning of multiculturalism, something done recently by Angela Merkel of Germany and David Cameron of Britain.  At one time I thought the Norwegian labor party, which is in power, was just naive and childlike.  Now I'm becoming convinced that it is evil, often showing sympathy for terrorist groups, especially the ones that target Israel.  It's been widely reported that Washington is fed up with the current Norwegian government, believing it doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously.  It's time for a change in Norway, so the Norwegian people can be better served.

MAJOR GAFFE, AGAIN – Joe Biden reportedly compared Tea Party activists to terrorists in a closed Democratic meeting today.  At first his office declined to confirm or deny that the vice president had made the remark, but, after a wave of criticism began to build, issued a statement saying that Biden didn't believe that term was acceptable in political discourse.  That's nice to know.  If the comment hadn't been reported publicly, I wonder if the vice president would have cautioned his fellow Dems about the level of their conversation.

August 1, 2011       Permalink

BULLETIN:  HOUSE PASSES DEBT COMPROMISE – AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  The House has just passed the debt deal, 269-161 (the latest count).  Numbers change slightly in these things, but it appears as many Dems voted against it as for it.

It now goes to the Senate, where Tea Partier Senator Mike Lee of Utah is threatening a filibuster.  It would take 60 votes to break a filibuster.  Stand by.

The most dramatic moment in the House today came when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona appeared to cast her vote.  Shot in the head in Tucson earlier this year, her appearance was a complete surprise to the news media.  She stood, waved when introduced, and there was a healthy, and humane, bipartisan cheer.  She looked thin, and a bit unsteady, but only a small percentage of victims even survives the kind of wound she sustained, so her appearance was something of a miracle.

Polls are showing a growing anger on both sides of the political fence about the debt deal.  One poll shows more than 70% of Americans opposed.  GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney expressed his opposition today.  A good guess would be that it will get through Congress, averting a default on our debts tomorrow, but undergo some artistic change in the future.

National defense Republicans, and independent Joe Lieberman, have expressed grave reservations about possible further cuts in the defense budget, a concern we've expressed here.  But that would only happen if a joint House-Senate committee can't come up with other cuts by a Thanksgiving deadline.  Some Dems have already said they want further cuts in defense, which won't shock any of our readers. 

Our eyes now turn to the Senate, which is set to vote at noon tomorrow.

August 1, 2011       Permalink

WHERE THE GOP RACE STANDS – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen is out with a fascinating poll this morning that, I think, shows where things are going to go in the race for the Republican nomination for president.

The inclusion of likely candidate Rick Perry has tightened the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination dramatically, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still ahead – but just barely.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Romney earning 22% support, closely followed by Perry, the Texas governor who is expected to enter the race soon, with 18% of the vote. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is in third place with 16%...

...Thirty-nine percent (39%) of likely GOP Primary voters say they are members of the Tea Party. Forty-three percent (43%) say they are not members, but another 17% are not sure.

Perry leads among Tea Party members with 28% support. Bachmann runs second in this group with 22% of the vote, with Romney at 16% closely followed by Cain’s 13%. Among primary voters who are not Tea Party members, Romney captures 29% of the vote. Perry (13%), Bachmann (11%) and Paul (10%) follow at a distance.

Here we see that GOP split again.  But I think non-Tea Partiers will begin to defect to Perry, who is the best campaigner in the bunch.  Unless Romney, who is Mr. Establishment, can light a fire, he may soon be the former frontrunner.

Again, Michele Bachmann continues to impress with her strong showing.  However, I don't think she'll get the nomination, in part because of the narrowness of her base.  And I don't think a presidential candidate will want her as his vice presidential choice, since she isn't exactly known as a team player.  Her role may be in the future.

August 1, 2011       Permalink

PUT HER ON A MILK CARTON –  AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  Nile Gardiner, one of the most astute of the British America watchers, asks a pertinent question this morning:  Has anyone heard from Hillary Clinton?  Does she have a summer address or something?   Gardiner is particularly outraged by Clinton's silence on the massacres in Syria, which, according to the latest reports, may have taken as many as 140 lives just yesterday: 

But where was the US Secretary of State, the official voice of American foreign policy, in responding to one of the most sickening acts of barbarism conducted against civilians by any regime in the 21st Century? Hillary Clinton has been a striking no-show on one of the most important days of her time in office. There has been no statement yet from Mrs. Clinton in stark contrast to many other international leaders. Nor has the State Department even posted a statement from any of its officials regarding the Syrian atrocity on its website. Contrast this for example with the prominent feature on the Syrian violence at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

There is though, prominently featured on the State Department homepage at time of writing, a story about Black Eyed Peas musician will.i.am directing a concert in Beijing later this year.

I can't wait for the classical music. 

This is appalling for a vast government department that employs nearly 20,000 people, and is yet another example of a serious failure of US leadership. Hillary Clinton has all too often been an invisible Secretary of State and a symbol of the Obama administration’s “leading from behind” approach. When America fails to lead, the world is a far more dangerous place, and on both Syria and Iran, Washington has been extremely slow to stand up to the brutal suppression of political dissidents. Clinton’s deafening silence in the face of a savage massacre is a damning indictment of her time as Secretary of State. She needs to dramatically step up her game if she is at all serious about projecting the kind of international leadership that is worthy of a superpower.

Clinton is more capable than Obama, and I thought she would do better as secretary of state.  She says she wants to leave after Obama's first term (which we hope will be his final term) and I suspect she'll return to her left-wing sixties roots, maybe as president of some trendy college or head of some equally trendy foundation. 

The president did issue a statement yesterday saying that he was appalled at the violence in Syria.  That's nice.  I'm sure it will encourage the dissidents.  There does not appear anything that the West is willing to do about the situation, and many, many more will die. 

Meanwhile, the world's "peace activists" are concerned only with condemning the United States, Israel, and anyone in Europe who dares to question reckless and irresponsible immigration policies.

August 1, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:

From NBC:  A new report says that adults in Washington D.C. abuse alcohol more than anyone else in the country.

This may explain much about where we are.

SOUL OF A PARTY – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  What does the Republican Party really stand for?  Does anyone know?  What we have seen in the debt debate is a split, with Reagan conservatives, along with some moderates, on one side, and the Tea Partiers are on the other. 

While the Tea Partiers also claim the Reagan mantle, and no doubt a large number believe in the Reagan Revolution, there is a militant chunk who clearly do not.  And they can drive the GOP back to the 1930s, a party of green eyeshades that pines for the "old Republic" and has no problem with a modern-day isolationism.  From the Washington Examiner:

As Washington begins to digest the bipartisan deal to hike the debt limit, one thing that’s clear that it will set up an obvious intra-conservative battle between defense hawks and the anti-tax crowd.

For decades, the central difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to fiscal policy is that liberals want to reduce the deficit through tax hikes and cuts to defense spending while conservatives want to focus on entitlements and other non-defense spending without raising taxes. Given that any deal between the two parties would have to involve Republicans giving something up, there’s always been the potential for tension between these two strands of conservatism. That underlying tension is going to rise to the surface in the coming months.

The anti-tax crusaders, led by Grover Norquist (with assistance from elements of the tea parties) have already won the first stage of this battle. Norquist urged Republicans to hold the line on taxes, but he has also argued that the conservative movement should get behind cuts to the defense budget. And the current deal includes defense cuts, but not tax increases. What’s more, it creates a joint Congressional committee to find additional savings, and if the committee cannot find enough, it triggers further defense cuts – but not any tax increases.

I will have to say it:  Grover Norquist, who is "Mr. Tax Cut" in Washington, is widely reported to be very close to Islamic causes.  His wife is Muslim, and his children have Muslim names.  I stress that I don't say that with any ethnic prejudice, but when a man with this background stresses defense cuts we have a right to know his full agenda.  He's been leading a campaign to get us out of Afghanistan to save money, but it is legitimate to wonder if there are other motives.

By the way, John McCain, a man devoted to national defense, has given his take on the deal:

Sen. John McCain says he'll vote for compromise legislation averting a government default, although "I will probably have to swallow hard."

The Arizona Republican who lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election says he's concerned about the impact of the deficit-reduction deal on defense spending.

But McCain also tells CBS's "The Early Show" that officials in Washington realized "we were not going to let the government shut down."

He also says that while he's worried about the Pentagon budget, he believes the new, special committee that will be established to follow through on promises of deficit-reduction will be more successful than similar panels established for this purpose in the past.

McCain notes the new panel will have the authority to order "up or down votes" on proposed cuts.

COMMENT:  At the heart of the Reagan Revolution was a strong and growing national defense, not a liberal-style gutting of the Pentagon, which we had in the 1970s and, to some degree, again in the 1990s.  We are going to have a fight on our hands for the soul of the GOP, but also the soul and future of this country.  I think the issue is very much in doubt.

Next month will mark ten years since the attacks of 9-11.  Look what we've come to.  Look at the leadership we have.

August 1, 2011       Permalink

THE BIG DEAL – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  Is it a good deal?  Is it a fair deal?  I've looked at the agreement that will presumably avoid a default and find it a mediocre deal, with dangerous implications. 

It does potentially cut more spending than the increase in the debt that it allows, but it emphatically does not protect national defense from catastrophic cuts that could severely compromise our military effectiveness and thus our foreign policy.  We hope those cuts don't occur.  If they do, you can kiss America's superpower status goodbye, as China builds its military power.

The Democrats won't care.  Their party is controlled by a crowd nostalgic for the 1960s.  And, sadly, some of the Tea Party contingent also doesn't seem to care.  While military pay appears to be protected, military strength is not.  Indeed, if panels set up by the agreement cannot agree on where to cut to fulfil the requirements of the agreement, then certain cuts become automatic, and half will come from national security.

Now, it is true that all agreements like this tend to float into space after time, as Congress makes modifications and money gets shifted around by the federal government.  But I am uneasy with the lack of national defense guarantees. 

The agreement calls for no new taxes.  That is the new Republican religion.  It is also wholly unrealistic, unless the economy begins to boom and takes care of a lot of our problems.  Even conservative writers and economists like Ben Stein have been saying that som tax enhancements are inevitable if the American people demand certain services. 

Michelle Bachmann has announced that she will vote against the plan.  Not enough spending cuts.

It is impressive only that the leaders got a deal, apparently without much constructive help from our campaigner in chief.  The deal itself does not thrill.  We will be learning more details as the day progresses.  I will be looking for the reaction, which will probably involve a number of leaks, from military people.

For a reasonable presentation of what the agreement includes, go to the AP piece here, and Speaker Boehner's "slide show" on the agreement here.

August 1, 2011     Permalink

JULY 31, 2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:

DEAL REACHED – You all probably know by now that a deal has been reached in Washington, averting a technical default on our debts scheduled to take place on Tuesday.  We actually don't know the details of the deal, although leaders of both parties seem optimistic that it will pass Congress.  It was pretty clear during the day that one element holding up agreement was Speaker Boehner's insistence that any agreement not do damage to national defense.  It appars, based on reporting by Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, that he may have succeeded in isolating defense from other items in the budget, and giving it some protection.  We won't comment on this until we know the details tomorrow.

REVOLT OF THE GENERALS? – We've had several military "revolts" in American history, none coming close to a coup, of course.  Generals and admirals periodically express their displeasure with the civilian leadership and the decisions that affect national defense.  In the last few days we've heard rumblings that many American military officers believe that the drawdown in Afghanistan is too abrupt, and will endanger the gains made in that country.  At the same time, it's becoming clear from leaks and public statements that top military leaders in Washington are dismayed over the prospect of radical defense cuts, and are warning that this country cannot carry out its obligations if an already worn out and stressed force is cut much more.  Anyone listening?

DISCOURAGEMENT ON LIBYA – Britain's defense secretary, Liam Fox, concedes that Libyan rebel troops will not be able to dislodge bandit President Muamar Gadaffi.  Gadaffi and his forces have withstood four months of bombing, and Gadaffi remains in Tripoli, although his life is restricted by the bombings.  Fox is a solid guy and a keen ally of the United States.  His words should be taken seriously.  He says that the only way for Gadaffi to be overthrown may be the old reliable method, the palace coup.  In other words, NATO is looking for a betrayer, or a group of betrayers, inside Gadaffi's inner circle.  The lack of American leadership in the Libyan campaign has been a source of embarrassment for this country, and of frustration for our allies.

July 31, 2011     Permalink

DEFENDING DEFENSE – AT 10:46 A.M. ET:  We mentioned in our first post the importance of looking carefully at any debt agreement to see what it does to national defense.  Frankly, I'm worried.  So are a group of Republican members of Congress, who are now stepping forward to speak directly to the American people about the importance of maintaining our defenses in an increasingly dangerous world.  From the Weekly Standard: 

House Republicans held a press conference in the Capitol Saturday to denounce what they called dangerous cuts to defense spending in Senator Harry Reid's debt limit bill. Buck McKeon (R, Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, warned that Reid's bill would cut defense by more than $400 billion beyond Boehner's plan over 10 years. "If Senator Reid's plan passes--if we stand idly by while this administration spends down its domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops--our military will break," McKeon said. "The Army and Marines are stretched dangerously thin, separated from their families, and using hardware that has been chewed up by a decade of fighting.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R, Va.) said that Reid's bill would result in a dangerous reduction in both hardware and military personnel. "If we look at the Marine Corps they've said specifically they cannot meet the needs of the combatant commanders now," Forbes said. "If they have to make these cuts it'll have to come out of personnel, and they'll have to reduce their force structure, and they'll have to have a new strategy for how they defend the United States of America."

The most powerful rebuke of Reid's plan came from Lt. Colonel Allen West (R, Fla.). The Tea Partier and Iraq war veteran said he's not opposed to all defense cuts and even chastised the president for wasting tax dollars on Libya. But he called the Reid bill's cuts "incredible" and "unconscionable."

COMMENT:  One of the great myths is that we spend too much on defense.  We don't.  True, there are probably wasteful programs in the Pentagon, and they should be vigorously pursued.  But our overall defense budget really doesn't even cover some important needs.  We are not replacing ships fast enough.  We are certainly not replacing old warplanes fast enough.  If we cut personnel, we lose the expertise built up over years, and at great cost. 

We had four defense drawdowns in the 20th century, and lived to regret each one of them.  Young Americans paid a terrible price for unpreparedness, or shortages in equipment.

Hostile nations watch our defense spending carefully.  We know the Soviet Union watched President Reagan's defense buildup, and were clearly chastised by it.  The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up.

National defense is life insurance.  Properly managed, it is always worth it.  As President Kennedy once said, when the chief executive calls the Pentagon, someone always answers.

July 31, 2011       Permalink

HORROR IN SYRIA – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  We keep urging here that, in the midst of our own economic stress, it's important not to take our eyes off the foreign-policy ball.   There is new horror in Syria, one of the most important of Arab countries.  From Fox:

Syrian security forces killed at least 62 people Sunday in an escalation of the crackdown on protests ahead of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, activists and residents said. Most died in raids on the flashpoint city of Hama, where a barrage of shelling and gunfire left bodies scattered in the streets.

Demonstrations calling for President Bashar Assad's ouster are expected to swell during Ramadan, which starts Monday, in Syria. Security forces appeared to be racing against time as they stormed and raided cities and small villages across the country in an attempt to crush a remarkably resilient uprising that began in mid-March.

Having sealed off the main roads into the opposition stronghold of Hama almost a month ago, army troops in tanks pushed into the city from four sides before daybreak Sunday in a coordinated assault. Residents shouted "God is great!" and threw firebombs, stones and sticks at the tanks. The crackle of gunfire and thud of tank shells echoed across the city, and clouds of black smoke drifted over rooftops.

"It's a massacre. They want to break Hama before the month of Ramadan," an eyewitness who identified himself by his first name, Ahmed, told The Associated Press by telephone from Hama, where at least 49 people were killed Sunday.

Hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties and were seeking blood donations, he said.

COMMENT:  Note the deep concern expressed by "human rights activists," especially in the United States.  And note the laxness of our own government in dealing with this nightmare.  We were quick to push pro-American Hosni Mubarak out of the Egyptian presidency, but very slow to put truly serious pressure on the anti-American and pro-Iranian Syrian regime.  Hmm.

July 31, 2011       Permalink

DEBT TALKS UPDATE – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is saying at this hour that the parties are very close to an agreement to avert a debt crisis:

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats and Republicans are "very close" to reaching a $3 trillion deal on the debt limit, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.

"We had a very good day yesterday," the Kentucky Republican said, adding that the two sides "made dramatic progress."

With the deadline to reach a debt ceiling agreement just two days away, congressional leaders and the White House are mulling parts of a tentative deal that would extend the debt limit through next year.

A Republican source close to the negotiations told CNN the goal is $3 trillion in savings, and that the deal would include a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.

Just hours before, two other sources familiar with the negotiations had told CNN late Saturday night that the framework for the emerging deal called for up to $2.8 trillion in total deficit reduction over the next decade.

The plan, parts of which are still being negotiated by the White House and bipartisan congressional leaders, would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by enough to last at least through the end of 2012...

...McConnell added that he is "very very close to being able ... to recommend to my members that this is something that they ought to support."

The deal will not include tax increases, he said.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the Devil, as he always is, is in the details.  I want to know how this presumed deal will impact actual debt reduction over ten years.  I want to know how it will impact defense.  There are some reports, disturbing ones, that defense is to be gutted, but I can't believe Republicans would go along with that.  And, because I'm sane, I want to know how the plan will affect insurance (not entitlement) programs like Social Security and Medicare, which citizens have paid into all their working lives.  Government isn't doing Americans a favor by maintaining and reforming those programs.  Part of every paycheck goes for them.

July 31, 2011     Permalink