perfidy

Johno, I agree that the sending rebate checks is fairly ridiculous. But probably not for the same reason. While a rebate check sent to every tax payer might provide a transitory boost to the economy, it is at best a short term solution. The way to effect the economy with tax cuts is to, well, cut taxes. When people know that their taxes are lower, then they will change their behavior in a way that could effect the economy. This applies to regular income taxes, which might affect consumer confidence, consumer spending, housing starts and the like. Lowering, permanently, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes would increase investment and capital development. It has been shown that lowering taxes increases revenue - because the larger economy that is spurred by lower taxes yields more money in absolute terms, even though percentage of the government's take of the total economy is smaller. These rebates will not have this effect, because people - individuals and businesses - have no confidence that taxes will remain low. The economic picture is indeed muddled. Lowering tax rates would be a solid thing that people could count on.

While even full production from the Iraqi oil fields would remain a relatively small part of the total oil production (even the Saudi's immense reserves are only a quarter of total proven reserves) the effect of that production would be to drive down oil prices. And oil prices are one of the key factors in the world economy, because in some way or other, almost every business and industry is affected by oil prices. Shipping, energy, heating, plastics - the costs of all of these are all directly dependent on oil. Every other industry uses these services. When oil prices went up by 50%, it had the effect of a tax increase, because it increased the cost of doing business, or the cost of living. When they go down, it will act like a tax cut. And it won't effect the government's budget. 

As the effects of this percolate through the economy, eventually the job market will catch up with the growing economy. Jobless rates are always a trailing indicator. If the economy is already recovering, great. The lowered oil prices will be a shot in the arm, revving up the recovery.

Mike, the reason I asked you that is so that I could ask you this:

So what?

Young men fight in wars, and older men are usually at the head of governments. This has always been the case. Despite the whines of pollyannas, putting old men in the firing line would not really change things. What matters is why wars are fought, and what the result is (who wins.) The Civil War was won by the right side. Slavery died. This is good. WWII was fought by young, often poor, men while the Rockefellers, Fords, Kaisers and Roosevelts stayed at home and ran the government and industry. But we kicked Nazi ass, and that is good. American wars have (largely) been for good reasons, against bad people.

If American historians hate and villify the Irish Americans, they are the only ones doing it. I haven't noticed any anti-Irish bigotry in the wider world.

Ladies: I think I'm gonna stay out of the political debate until I think of something smart to say. Should be a while.

Buckethead, as for your post on Iran, I'd say there's a heck of a lot disturbing about the very idea of libervading Iran. I totally agree that, should the time come to pass, we should not rely on mercenaries and former enemies to wage a proxy war on our behalf. I think I'm on safe ground in asserting that it's never a good idea. But I would go one step farther and ask why it's necessary to head into Iran to begin with. By your own lights, all signs suggest that it's not a stable state to begin with. Why not give the situation some time to marinate and see if the mullahs' power crumbles all on its own? It would be much, much easier, cheaper, and dignified to be able to sweep into Iran because a popular revolution started rolling on its own. (And hey, if that happened, maybe for once we won't be decried as the A-holes of the world! (Yeah... right.))

Your (admittedly rhetorical) argument that we're in the neighborhood anyway is lightweight--about the same as my wanting to finish the last two beers in the twelve-pack because they look so lonely in there without their friends. Goodwife Two-Cents always pulls me back from that brink, and with good cause. Convenience is not an excuse for a hangover, much less a war. And although I totally agree with you about the perfidy of the mullahs and the USAity of some of the Iranian population, that doesn't sell me on a war either. And payback? Are we Bruce Willis? (Or Mel Gibson, but that was one crappy movie so I'm disqualifying him.)

We should not be too quick to jump into another conflict until it's proven that we are in fact ably committed to helping Iraq rebuild, until the same can be said for Afghanistan, until the Palestinian 'situation' (as you say) is resolved, until diplomacy has had time to work, until the waiting game is doing more harm than good (to Americans and Iranians alike), and until it's proven that our armed forces, economy, and national creed can handle it. That, and I still oppose such hijinks on principle anyway.

Or, we could just (as you say) nuke 'em.

Mike, you should get a pat on the back for winning fights. They probably deserved it. But you lost fights? What a wuss...

heh.

full disclosure: I have never won a schoolyard fight. I might be able to now, if I picked on a sixth grader.

Let's talk about why that was a good thing. BFD, you say? The two stage world war defined the first half of the twentieth century, and the cold war defined the second. On that basis alone, winning that schoolyard fight must be a big fucking deal. And the people that won it should get medals - because they won it, people like us aren't in gulags. And Mike, you would probably be in their ahead of me, because the communists always purged heretics before they purged the infidel. 

The Cold War was a ideological contest between, not to put to fine a point on it, freedom / goodness / light and enslavement / evil / darkness. On any given Sunday, the Communist empire was every bit as evil as the Nazi one, but it lasted for seven times as long, and killed at least three times as many people. If we had rolled over for the Soviets, or allowed ourselves to become like them, we would not be living in our peachy keen, if imperfect, republic of liberty. Secret police, reeducation camps, show trials, total state control of every aspect of your life: this is what we avoided. And Reagan and Thatcher, by resisting it, and calling it what it was, (and by shoveling money into the fire faster than the Russkies could ever dream of hoping to do) drove the beast over the cliff. Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents, told of the way that the Evil Empire speech heartened them in their resistance to the Soviet state. 

I know you don't like Churchill, either, Mike; but Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher were the four greatest defenders of liberty and the free world of the last century. 
 

Some in the Pentagon are saying that Iran is the proper target, and are proposing the use of covert operations to engineer the collapse of the Iranian fundamentalist theocracy. Those pushing this plan feel that the collapse of the Iranian government is the only way to forestall the development of nuclear weapons which could be used against American targets. 

One disturbing aspect of the plan is that it would include the use of a group currently classified as a terrorist organization by the US government. The MEK was a group sponsored by Saddam's regime in an attempt to destabilize it's rival neighbor. After the fall of the Baathist government in the wake of the American libervation, the American government and the MEK agreed to a ceasefire, and the MEK disarmed. However, MEK forces are still in existence and the weapons are in storage. 

Many of the arguments for regime change in Iraq apply equally well to Iran - a government resolutely inimical to American interests, state support of terrorist groups, development of WMD, and oppression and brutalization of their own population. With Iran, we get the added bonus of payback for the hostage crisis. Where the population of Iraq seems genuinely happy to be rid of Saddam, but lukewarm about the American presence; word is that the Iranian people are very much pro-American. Numerous articles by Michael Ledeen of the National Review, among others, have told the story of the widespread protests against the regime in Tehran and Qum, as well as many other regions. The people of Iran, I think would greatly support any effort by the US to overthrow the Mullahs. 

As a charter member of the Axis of Evil, Iran should certainly be on our list. And given the new strategic situation, we are in a prime position to move on Iran - we have them bracketed on two sides - Iraq and Afghanistan - three, really, if you count the Persian Gulf. I don't think we need to use some of Saddam's thugs to achieve our goals, however. We should be working with the Poles, the Australians and the Brits if we choose to go down that path. 

But we should not be too quick to jump into another conflict while we are still committed to Iraq, and while the Palestinian situation is still unresolved. We should give the UN time to work the diplomacy angle, and see if... Aw, fuck it, let's just nuke 'em. 
 

Buckethead, there are two points I will concede, IE your promotion of debate, and knowing a lefty to see one, but others I will concede partially, or not at all. I'm not convinced that racism has been reduced quite to the extent that you argue. Anecdotally, the example of the people you work with would indicate a reduction, and it does. But what is the overall and broad extent to which racism has been reduced? Difficult to tell, and I will gladly admit that I don't know the answer. So, point partially conceded. Next, calling for a million Mogadishus and the deaths of American soldiers might very well indicate a hatred for America, or it can be an exaggeration device to oppose the war in the most brutal and shocking terms possible. It could be shock value. While I do not advocate the death of anyone, as I said before, others did say that, and maybe it's out of hatred for America. Point partially conceded. 

As to Reagan and Thatcher winning the Cold War, this is inflammatory and I'm indulging myself, but I'll write it anyway. Big Fucking Deal. What do they want, medals? I won a bunch of schoolyard fights during my adolescence and I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I lost a couple, too, but we won't talk about that. 

Finally, do I hate America? No. There are many things to like about America at the present time. Unlike most European countries, Britain, and Ireland, we have bars open until four, at least in Chicago and Peoria, IL, and elsewhere I'm sure. I haven't been compelled to serve in the military, auto fuel is cheap (compared to Europe/Britain/Ireland), I can vote, the grocery stores have lots of good stuff to eat, I can participate in cultural activities related to both my ethnic groups as opposed to just one, and the list goes on. Are there things I don't like about America? Why, yes. Yes, there are. But back to things I like, and to tie it all together, here's a final question. Do I believe in the necessity of revolution in the United States? No. The system of which you are so fond makes it possible to solve problems constitutionally rather than violent means. It favors the wealthy over the poor in many cases (a thing I don't like), it's slow, and it takes a long time, but patience is a virtue I possess. Otherwise, I couldn't be an effective teacher. Violent revolution would be looking for the quick fix, but there are no quick fixes or easy solutions to societal problems. Another point partially conceded to the Buckethead. 

So there you have it. As my own little post-script, was the American Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? It was. People in the Union could pay money to the government, or hire substitutes to serve in their stead. All the bullshit the postmodernist historians have been spouting lately about how that really wasn't the case, well, hazut! That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years. But I'll veer away from the conspiratorial rant. In the Confederacy, poor men from the backcountry served in the infantry to preserve the Confederacy, slavery, and the state's rights backdoor to the preservation of slavery for the benefit of large plantation owners who were rich, while women on the home front starved. In both cases, poor men died to do the will of wealthy, powerful men.

Buckethead, I think you may be mischaracterizing matters somewhat. Many people (who are not all Democrats) are rather cynically expecting the economy to tank once again, which would result in a very welcome Presidential pie-in-face moment. While not devoid of schadenfreude, it's a long way from hoping the economy stays torpid. I'd LOVE the economy to improve, but if it doesn't, I'll find my silver lining somehow. 

Funny thing is, the experts say the economy has recovered. The Wall Street Journal ran an article today (no link...subscription only) on the muddled signals the economy is sending. Some economists point to the slow but definite expansion of production, productivity, consumer spending, and GDP as a sign that the economy has entered a healthy phase. But others point to the continued downturn in the job market (the Journal cites 525,000 nonfarm jobs disappearing in the last three months) as a sign that we're instead in a difficult transitional stage*. Even though productivity is rising, corporations are using the higher productivity rates as an excuse to cut jobs and thereby reduce operating budgets-- not the behavior of corporations in the midst of a growth cycle. As a consequence, regardless of the state of the economy, times remain hard for those workers who either aren't working or who are just getting by. Raises don't happen, wages don't rise, savings don't accumulate, and people don't feel secure.

Am I speaking partially autobiographically? Um... perhaps. I can definitely tell you that in Massachusetts, the worst-hit state in the recent recession, times are still bad for everyone. Although the economy as a whole may still be healthy, budgets at the places my friends work-- libraries, higher ed, museums, nonprofits, entertainment-- are still cut beyond tolerance, and professional jobs are just not appearing in any field except nursing. When they do appear, a scrum develops as two hundred people compete for the same one opening. I could go tomorrow and get a gig at Dunkin Donuts, but I know some seasoned professionals who have been out of steady work for more than a year while still looking, all in an economy which the signs say is recovering. 

What I'm getting at is, even if Iraqi oil surges into the world market in two weeks, that won't have much of an effect on the job market as long as corporations don't feel like they should expand their payrolls. Also, Iraq has just one slice of the world oil-producing capacity, and unlike you I'm not confident it will come anywhere near full capacity soon. 

And the tax cut? While I'm overjoyed to have an extra three damn dollars in my paycheck each pay period, I'd rather see the money go toward the unfunded education mandates the President has handed down. Or the insultingly underfunded AIDS initative he heralded back in January. Or perhaps to train and retain the airport security screeners who are being laid off. This is the SECOND time this President has written checks to Americans, and it's starting to come across like a parent who doesn't know any way besides money to keep the kids quiet. 

*Source: Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2003. A1, A14

Many Democrats seem to be hoping that the economy tanks, or at the very least fails to improve, in order that they may regain power. That hope may be misplaced, in addition to being reprehensible. When the Iraqi oil fields come back on line in the next couple weeks, I think that they will be running full tilt. All the money will go into the Iraqi college fund, or whatever they're calling it. But the real benefit will be plummeting oil prices, and sticking a knife in OPEC. If Iraqi oil production maxes out, oil prices will be sub $20/barrel in a matter or weeks. This will be a massive shot in the arm for the American (and world) economy, equivalent to a tax cut much bigger than the one we actually got. Between the low oil prices, and the tax cut, I think we will see real improvement.

Post removed. I'm done taking shots at the easy targets. Stay tuned for my closely-reasoned epistemological critique of why Buckethead's ontological assumptions about life in these here United States...er...umm... Oh, forget it. Stay tuned for fart jokes and more carefully moderate politics.