The Intransigent Conservative: Chuck Hagel

Showing posts with label Chuck Hagel. Show all posts

Thursday, February 14, 2013

View the story "Thursday's Thoughts (2/14/13)" on Storify Thursday's Thoughts (2/14/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Thu, Feb 14 2013 16:46:32 Emily Miller, former deputy press secretary for Secretaries of State Powell & Rice, writes that America cannot afford to put off spending restraint. As Speaker Boehner said last week, “The American people do not believe the president will use further tax revenues to lower the debt. After having seen this president attempt to spend his way into prosperity over the last four years, they know he’ll spend it.”

“President Obama has a way to delay the across-the-board $85 billion sequestration scheduled for March 1. His not-so-surprising proposal is to raise taxes so he can spend more. Fortunately, the GOP is not going along with this tired, old plan.”

“The original Budget Control Act was about deficit reduction, but the sequester part was only a reduction in spending — it had nothing to do with taxes,” said Patrick Louis Knudsen, senior fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation. “For that reason, if you’re going to replace it with something else, it should be alternative spending reductions.”

“The president keeps saying that the spending cuts in sequestration would be tough on the fragile economy, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem taking money out of the economy by taxes,” explained Mr. Knudsen. “Keynesians always do that — they fight against taking money out of the private sector with spending cuts, but have no problem doing it by raising taxes.” MILLER: Obama’s Insatiable Appetite for Taxes http://bit.ly/WZGGlAEmily Miller David A. Fahrenthold reports that the actual impact of a historic $37.8 billion federal spending cut in April 2011 was often negated by accounting gimmicks that “cut” programs that, in fact, had already been canceled.

“In some areas, they did bring significant cutbacks in federal spending… But the bill also turned out to be an epic kind of Washington illusion. It was stuffed with gimmicks that made the cuts seem far bigger — and the politicians far bolder — than they actually were.”

“Today, an examination of 12 of the largest cuts shows that, thanks in part to these gimmicks, federal agencies absorbed $23 billion in reductions without losing a single employee.”

“Many of the cuts we put in were smoke and mirrors,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a hard-line conservative now in his second term. “That’s the lesson from April 2011: that when Washington says it cuts spending, it doesn’t mean the same thing that normal people mean.”

“To sketch the bill’s biggest impacts, The Washington Post focused on the 16 largest individual cuts. Each, in theory, sliced at least $500 million from the federal budget. Together, they accounted for $26.1 billion, two-thirds of the total… there were at least seven where the cuts caused only minimal real-world disruptions or none at all.”

“The Post’s analysis found five large cuts that turned out to be very real… None of them actually caused an agency in Washington to shed federal personnel. Instead, they reduced the money that passed through those agencies to state and local projects.” Many 2011 federal budget cuts had little real-world effect http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-2011-federal-budget-cuts-had-little-real-world-effect/2013/02/09/11938e3e-6bc6-11e2-a396-ef12a93b4200_story.htmlDavid Fahrenthold budgetcuts2Brian_Empric Carl J. Schramm (@CarlSchramm), contributor at the 4% Growth Project and a recognized leading authority on entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, asks, “What if the economy never recovers?”

“It is common to hear people discuss 2% annual growth and 8% unemployment as the ‘new normal’… Perhaps most alarming is that Americans between the ages of 18 and 27 have never known what it’s like to participate in a robust, growing, economy.”

“The sentiment felt today is not unprecedented in history. During the Great Depression there was likewise a feeling that recovery might never come. It is assumed that we now really understand the events of 1929 and how the near decade long Depression finally came to an end. Clearly we do not; if we did, we would have pulled ourselves out of the current predicament by now.”

“Through a good deal of ill-advised, ideological policymaking — including expanding public debt and a raft of novel regulatory ways to insert the government into the day-to-day lives of citizens and the decisions of business — the Roosevelt administration prolonged the American Depression well past the recovery that Europe enjoyed beginning in 1933… Many mistakenly believe that the war, with its need for soldiers and munitions workers and new deficit spending, solved the Depression. Without the war we might have had something like today’s jobless, quasi-recovery.”

“If there is no deus ex machina solution today (i.e., we don’t have a war) and America continues to spend more on the public sector than our society can possibly support at current levels of growth (growth being inversely influenced by the size of the nation’s deficit spending), will we ever see full employment again? It seems a certainty that higher taxes on those willing to risk capital by investing in new industrial infrastructure (the motor of private-sector job creation) will surely cause investment financing to become more costly, thus adding to the anti-growth forces.”

“Higher taxes coupled with out-of-control spending are likely to produce another year in which growth won’t happen and jobs creation remains level or falls… If the concomitant cost in all this is that our economy can never again grow at 4% or 5% a year, it will indeed be a bleak future for America’s promise.” Forgetting Prosperity | 4 PercentWhat if the economy never recovers? There's a growing portion of Americans who consider this a real possibility. It is common to hear peo... Dr. Salim Furth, Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, writes about last week’s CBO forecast, which “continued the pattern of predicting a strong recovery just two years away.” There are 3 possible explanations: forecasts are never perfect, factors have contributed to the slow recovery, or the past five years “have been a clinic in bad policymaking.”

“Although CBO’s economic approach is typical among forecasters and historically unbiased, the economy’s persistent failure to launch as predicted raises questions. Are current conditions of persistent slow growth and high unemployment principally the result of bad luck, uncertain global economic conditions, or bad policy?”

“Each year the Outlook embodies the spring-back theory of recessions, with a robust recovery beginning two years away. As Chart 1 exhibits, the boom is always just around the corner—but has not arrived as predicted in the past few years. From 2010 to 2012, annual growth averaged 2.1 percent, which is not enough to diminish the gap between actual and potential GDP.”

“Washington has made large, impactful policies that have negative incentive effects on the private economy, including overhauling the welfare eligibility rules, rewriting the bankruptcy rules for General Motors, pointless tax rebates, harmful tax increases, regulatory uncertainty, sequestration uncertainty, ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ the ‘Cornhusker Kickback,’ blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, funding railroad boondoggles in the desert, Obamacare, and Dodd–Frank.”

“As the economy limps through its fourth year of ‘recovery,’ CBO has further diminished its expectations for the long-term potential of the economy. This can be seen in Chart 2, where the forecast for 2019 GDP has fallen each year since 2010.”

“As discouraging as the new CBO Outlook is, reality will probably be worse unless federal policies improve.” Questions Raised by the CBO ReportAs expected, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Budget and Economic Outlook released today continued the pattern of predicting a stron... CBO chart 1Brian_Empric CBO chart 2Brian_Empric Ori Lewis reports that Benjamin Netanyahu has recently told a group of American Jewish leaders “that new centrifuges Iran was installing for its uranium enrichment program could cut by a third the time needed to create a nuclear bomb.” Based on the parameters of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in late September 2012, this means Iran could have enough material to produce a bomb in about 60-90 days.

“The move underlined Iran's defiance of international demands to scale back the uranium enrichment which Tehran says is for civilian purposes but which could also potentially be used to make material for atomic bombs.”

“Iran's ... nuclear weapons program continues unabated ... I drew a line at the U.N. last time I was there,” Netanyahu said. “They haven't crossed that line but what they are doing is to shorten the time that it will take them to cross that line and the way they are (doing it) is by putting in new, faster centrifuges that cut the time by one third.”

“You have to upgrade the sanctions and they have to know that if the sanctions and diplomacy fail, they will face a credible military threat. That's essential. Nothing else will do the job, and it's getting closer,” Netanyahu said. New #Iran centrifuges could shorten path to atomic bomb: Netanyahu http://reut.rs/YS9ifL #IsraelReuters Top News Rick Santorum writes that Obama and his recent nominees are determined to blur the clear moral lines between right and wrong.

“Iran remains the greatest threat to the security of the United States and its people that exists in the world today. Iran – where ‘Death to America’ chants can be frequently heard on the street and whose leaders have pledged to ‘annihilate’ Israel – continues its aggression.”

“In late January, a former Iranian diplomat defected and told Israeli television that Venezuela is shipping uranium to Iran and the country is only a year away from having a nuclear bomb and would use it against Israel.”

“For those of us who recognize and take these threats seriously, the first weeks of the second Obama administration have been a grim period. The nominations of Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and John Brennan, for the heads of Defense, State and CIA, respectively, have been a reminder that President Obama would prefer a softer, more negotiable stance with Iran than what is required to confront this threat.”

“As a U.S. senator, Hagel voted against sanctions on Iran and refused to sign a letter that labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization – the same Hezbollah that was linked to a bombing in Bulgaria last summer.”

“Brennan’s views, like Hagel’s, have been even more accommodating of Iran and its ally, Hezbollah. He has tried to remove language like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ from the law enforcement and intelligence communities…”

“While Kerry’s anti-war views are well-known from his post-Vietnam days, his friendliness toward our more recent enemies has been less reported. He has been a supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, and has advocated deeper engagement with bad actors and friends of Iran like Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and Egypt’s new dictator, Mohamed Morsi.”

“These three – Hagel, Kerry and Brennan – along with President Obama, are what Barry Rubin, Middle East expert and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, calls ‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.’

“Instead of drawing clear moral lines against what we know to be the evil and very serious threat of Iran, these four have a history of blurring, of seeking to engage, of negotiating and of ‘appealing to moderate elements.’ Given the aggressive nature and deadly threat we face, the thought of where these four will lead us is downright scary.” My latest: Getting Serious with Iran. http://ptrtvoic.es/WTObsURick Santorum Conservatives have not reacted favorably to the formation of Karl Rove’s Conservative Victory Project super PAC. Nate Silver analyzes the previous two rounds of Republican Senate primaries and determines that “money is usually the least pressing problem for the incumbents and other establishment-backed candidates whom Mr. Rove’s group might be inclined to support.”

There is a small correlation between share of funds raised and margin of victory, but “the relationship is much weaker than it is in general elections for the Senate, when fund-raising totals have about twice as much power to predict the margin between the Democratic and Republican candidates.”

“The table below reflects 23 Senate races between 2010 and 2012 in which an establishment-backed candidate squared off against an insurgent candidate in a Republican Senate primary…the overall message from the data should be reasonably clear. The establishment candidates substantially outraised the insurgents, by an average of $4.3 million to $1.2 million… And yet, the insurgent candidates won 11 of 23 races, or nearly half the contests.”

“The voters who do turn out in Republican Senate primaries are likely to be highly informed consumers of conservative-friendly news media outlets such as talk radio, prime-time shows on Fox News and conservative magazines and blogs. They may also weigh the endorsements of prominent conservative politicians and organizations. An insurgent candidate who is presented in a favorable light in these outlets may have plenty of ability to reach her target voters, even if she is spending little or nothing on paid advertisements and outreach efforts.

“Mr. Rove’s efforts could backfire, therefore, if they result in the insurgent candidate receiving more sympathetic treatment through these channels; the amount of so-called ‘earned media’ that the insurgent receives could outweigh the extra advertisements that the establishment candidate is able to afford.”

“The intuition is simply that it may be dangerous to raise the profile of an insurgent candidate for whom a little extra money and exposure could go a long way.”

“Republican voters have already been rejecting these candidates despite their overwhelming advantage in paid media placements, and often because they are viewed as too much a part of the Washington establishment. It will take more than a new super PAC for Mr. Rove to earn back their trust.” [new article] New Rove Group Could Backfire on G.O.P. http://nyti.ms/12nnM7xNate Silver nate silver tableBrian_Empric James Taranto interviews former Justice Department Civil Rights division attorney and voting-rights expert Hans von Spakovsky about the liberal campaign to expand the electoral rolls via the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013—and why Obama is on board.

“In December, some ‘three dozen of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups, including union organizations,’ held a strategy session, he says, citing a report from the liberal magazine Mother Jones. They agreed to ‘oppose all voter integrity efforts, things like voter ID,’ to push for federal legislation requiring states to permit voter registration on Election Day, and to institute ‘automatic’ voter registration.”

“They basically want to use the government to do Democratic voter outreach and voter registration for them,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “They believe that if they can get, for example, everyone registered to vote who is currently getting government benefits like welfare . . . then that will somehow get them more votes at the polls and make it easier to win elections.”

“A Pew Center study found that in 2008—when, as Mr. von Spakovsky reminds me, ‘we had the highest turnout in a presidential election since the 1960s’—the average wait time was 10 to 20 minutes. In 2012, according to an MIT study, Florida had the longest average wait time, 45 minutes. Long waits can be a problem in big cities, but officials ‘can easily fix that themselves, without any federal help, by reducing the precinct sizes.’”

“The left is constantly working on these voting issues,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “They have dozens of organizations, with a lot of money.” The goal, he says, is “to change the rules to give them an advantage in elections. The other side of the political aisle just doesn't do that.”

“They keep trying to scare black voters into thinking that these voter ID laws are an attempt to take away the right to vote,” Mr. von Spakovsky says. “We know that's not true. The experience of states that have had voter ID laws in place for [several] years, like Georgia and Indiana, shows that it does not suppress the vote of black voters; it doesn't in any way keep them out of the polls.” My Weekend Interview with Hans von Spakovsky: The Coming Battle Over the Ballot Box http://on.wsj.com/ULYPVLJames Taranto David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman write that the courts would no more allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than the First. It doesn’t matter if the American people support Obama’s proposed gun-control measures, because “constitutionally protected rights are guarded with particular vigor precisely when public opinion turns against them.”

“Could there be a better illustration of the cultural divide over firearms than the White House photograph of our skeet-shooting president? Clay pigeons are launched into the air, but the president's smoking shotgun is level with the ground. This is not a man who is comfortable around guns. And that goes a long way toward explaining his gun-control agenda.”

“The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’… After Heller and its follow-on case, McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment rights to the states, what government cannot do is deny the individual interest in self-defense. As a legal matter, that debate is settled.”

“While the courts are still sorting out Heller's implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.”

“The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done.”

“A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink—the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?”

“At bottom, the Constitution requires sensible and effective regulation of guns that respects and upholds this most fundamental right. Policies motivated by nothing more than discomfort with firearms, often born of a lack of experience, fall far short.” Me and @DavidRivkin in @WSJopinion: Gun Control and the Constitution http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290460073953432.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopAndrew M. Grossman Obama shoots skeetBrian_Empric Amity Shlaes (@AmityShlaes), who directs The 4% Growth Project, is the author of the new book “Coolidge,” a reexamination of President Calvin Coolidge and the 1920s. She argues that Republicans pursuing small government and big results may want to consider a strategy of not just thinking small, but like Coolidge, being small too.

“The Grand Old Party’s abiding affection for a ‘bigger and better’ presidency isn’t entirely logical. After all, the Obama presidency commenced with an effort to reenact the Hundred Days. Yet President Obama’s first-term economic performance itself was not ‘big’ but mediocre, tiny even. Perhaps Republicans should consider whether inaction on the part of the White House can be desirable. Perhaps, led by Republicans, the United States could benefit from trying out an unfashionable idea: the small presidency.”

In the election of 1920, Warren Harding and his running mate Calvin Coolidge “coolly campaigned on the humdrum, underwhelming motto of ‘normalcy,’ meaning a reduction in uncertainty.”

“The White House was no bully pulpit; the Republican elephant should not be an elephant in a china shop. After winning the presidency, Harding continued to endorse inaction. ‘No altered system will work a miracle,’ Harding told the crowds at his March 1921 inauguration. ‘Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of the proven system.’ Harding wanted to ensure that government did less so that commerce might enjoy free range.”

“But… Harding was not really cut out to be a small president. His personality was big, and he tended to do things in a big way… Even when it came to legislating smaller government, Harding tended to favor a big style, demanding extra sessions of Congress to implement his agenda.”

The silent Coolidge became president in August 1923 when Harding died unexpectedly, and after finishing Harding’s term, he was elected in 1924 with 54% of the vote.

“Coolidge’s aims differed little from Harding’s: Indeed, he told the (Washington) Post’s (owner Edward) McLean that he aimed to carry out Harding’s plans ‘to perfection.’ But where Harding had relished the limelight, Coolidge shrank from it. Where Harding had led, Coolidge now delegated. As vice president, the New Englander had struck Washington socialites with his silence, and as president he continued to do so.”

“Many rated Coolidge weak. Some were even astounded that the presidency should come to such a nonentity… And he declined to run for reelection in 1928, forgoing a near-certain chance at victory. That earned him the contempt of his very practical party.”

“By 1929, when Coolidge left Washington, he had completed the legislative tasks Harding had only started. His 50 vetoes had held back the Progressives; his federal budget contained less spending in 1929 than it had in 1924. The harmony between Coolidge’s modest goals and his modest comportment lent the whole undertaking credibility.”

Shlaes believes that many Republican political failures “can be blamed on the party’s unwillingness to try out the small presidency again.”

“In the early 1970s, Richard Nixon similarly blurred the distinction between the two parties when he opted to play economic superhero at Camp David, ending the gold standard and imposing wage and price controls. These policies were popular at the time, but they hurt the party for decades: ‘We are all Keynesians now,’ Nixon’s phrase, too often meant we were all Democrats as well. Ronald Reagan, strong as he was, also fits in here. We can see some of Coolidge in him, for, like Coolidge, he cut taxes, looked away from details, and delegated routinely. But his willingness to permit continued federal spending produced a record of deficits that would undermine the Republican reputation for fiscal probity.” The Small Presidencywrites on NRO: Action is something Americans of both parties demand of their presidents these days. This is natural for Democrats, whose ...

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Thursday's Thoughts

@ericallie

View the story "Thursday's Thoughts (2/7/13)" on Storify Thursday's Thoughts (2/7/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Thu, Feb 07 2013 17:18:19 Ben Shapiro argues against the stated goals of Karl Rove’s new Conservative Victory Project group. The establishment should focus on assisting the candidates endorsed by the grassroots activists instead of abandoning conservative principle.

“During the 2012 election cycle, Tea Partiers were told by their supposed betters that their ignorance of everyday politics meant that they should take a back seat to the Republican Party establishment. Brandishing the so-called Buckley Rule with quasi-religious fervor -- the notion that Republicans should run the most conservative candidate who can win -- the establishment GOP proclaimed that the only presidential candidate who could win was Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.”

“But despite their 2012 losses, the establishment has decided that the problem in 2012 wasn't their own incompetence -- it was the dastardly Tea Party, which in its zealotry for conservatism has ignored the need for victory.”

“Why didn't Rove and company tell the Times that they were interested in training conservative candidates in media fluency? Why didn't they approach the Tea Party instead, and offer their get-out-the-vote services and electoral strategies?... Because, at root, there is a clash at the heart of today's Republican Party. The Tea Party wants to change tactics. The establishment wants to discard principle.”

“This divide doesn't have to continue. The establishment GOP could seek to rectify the breach with the Tea Party by embracing their enthusiasm for basic conservative principle and offering their expertise -- whatever expertise they have -- in helping them achieve victory.” Rove Vs. the Tea Party - Ben Shapiro - Page 1 http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/02/06/rove-vs-the-tea-party-n1505961 via @townhallcomBen Shapiro Following a survey at the beginning of February, Rasmussen Reports advises that Americans tend to consider a sales tax the fairest kind of tax.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of American Adults, when given four chief types of taxation, view a sales tax as the one that is most fair. Twenty-six percent (26%) rate an income tax as fairest, while six percent (6%) feel that way about property taxes and 5% consider a payroll tax the most fair. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.”

“Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans favor a proposal to eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.”

“Men and married adults favor sales taxes over income taxes more strongly than women and those who are not married.” 43% View Sales Tax As Fairest Kind of #Tax... http://tinyurl.com/ag9bpdnScott Rasmussen The FairTax Plan: The Fair Tax Act of 2013 is sponsored by Georgia Rep. Rob Woodall, and cosponsored by 59 other Representatives, including 9 of the 17 House Republicans from Florida.

“The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% and equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.” FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)FairTaxOfficial Lee Smith (fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) reviews Elliott Abrams’s new book: “Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.”

“Mr. Abrams's book is the definitive history of the last Republican president's considerable accomplishments in the Levant. This detailed record of meetings, documents and agreements demonstrates that the Palestinian question is of interest primarily because of its emotional resonance, for Americans as well as for Israelis and Arabs. It is more than just another issue; it is a broad and epic story featuring the full range of human passions and emotions.”

“Mr. Abrams joined the U.S. National Security Council staff in June 2001, first as a deputy assistant to the president and later as deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy. Until 2005 his boss was Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's closest confidante and the book's most fascinating figure. Mr. Abrams clearly respects and admires her but—as the narrative unwinds and Ms. Rice veers from the policies of the president she is supposed to serve—he also unflinchingly recounts her stubbornness, pride and ultimate ineffectiveness.”

“The Bush presidency marked a momentous time in Israeli-Palestinian affairs—a fact that seems to have escaped many, including Mr. Bush's successor… American engagement with the Jewish state and the Palestinians was more fruitful than ever before—or since.”

“In retrospect, it is easy to see that Bush administration diplomacy had at least two things going for it. First, it was conducted before Israel faced war on two borders from which it had withdrawn, southern Lebanon and Gaza, after which Israelis became rightly wary of exchanging more land for peace. Second, there was Mr. Sharon, a larger than life figure from Israel's generation of founding patriarchs who wanted out of Gaza not because he liked or trusted the Palestinian Authority but because he wanted to disentangle the people he had spent a lifetime protecting from their nemesis, the Palestinians.”

“As secretary of state, Ms. Rice was so determined to leave her mark as peacemaker that she seems to have viewed Israel's second Lebanon war as a personal affront. She unconscionably adopted Hezbollah talking points, like demanding that Israel return the Shebaa Farms, a small plot of land in the Golan Heights, to Lebanon, a move that implicitly justified Hezbollah terrorism against the Jewish state.” Unlikely Peacemakers -- Lee Smith on "Tested by Zion" by Elliott Abrams: http://on.wsj.com/Yv1m3IWSJ Books Section Benjamin Weinthal (research fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) reports on the Israeli air force’s destruction of a convoy last week, which included Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles intended for delivery to Hezbollah, the Shiite terror organization and Iran’s chief ally in Lebanon.

“According to Mideast security expert estimates, Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of 60,000 rockets. As my FDD colleague Jonathan Schanzer highlights, ‘Until now, with troubling news coming out of Iran, Syria, Gaza, and elsewhere, the Lebanon front has been largely ignored. But beware. A new conflict with Israel and Lebanon may be looming. And this conflict could erupt in a flash.’”

“Prior to al-Qaeda’s mass murder of Americans on 9/11, Hezbollah had killed the most Americans in acts of terror, including hundreds of U.S. military personnel in the early 1980s.”

“The question mark over the second Obama administration is whether his new national defense team will twist the arms of reluctant European leaders to outlaw Hezbollah. The U.S. designated Hezbollah as a terrorist entity in the 1990s… The EU, however, appears to be running scared of Hezbollah and showing no appetite to protect its citizens against terrorism.”

“It is long-overdue that the EU replicates the U.S. government’s terror listing of Hezbollah. The elimination of Hezbollah’s fundraising and organizational activities within the EU would advance U.S. interests as well as security for the Middle East region.” Re-upping my NRO blog on Hezbollah's war on the U.S. and Israel.#Hezbollah #Iranhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339592/hezbollah-s-war-israel-and-us-benjamin-weinthalBenjamin Weinthal Here is a short video produced by the Emergency Committee for Israel, which asks if we can afford a Secretary of Defense like nominee Chuck Hagel, who is so confused about Iran’s nuclear program? Is it too much to ask that Hagel knows Obama’s policy on Iran? There are no second and third takes at the Pentagon. Confusionemergcmteforisrael Jay Cost writes that Obama knows how to lose friends and alienate Congress, and the lessons of his first term suggest that he will not be very successful at persuading the legislative branch to do what he wants in his second term.

“The recent inaugural festivities would have seemed more than a little strange to the Framers of the Constitution, had they been on hand to see the show. After all, here was their ‘republic’ unified in celebration of vast executive powers being vested in a single human being. Did they not wage a bloody war to overcome such 17th-century notions?”

“The presidency has come to mean much more than the measly powers granted its occupant by the Constitution; the job of the modern president is to fill the spaces left between the various articles and sections and clauses of the founding document. What our system disperses among branches, states, localities, parties, and interest groups, the president brings together, coordinating their efforts for the national good.”

“But presidential power—the ability to persuade—has many sources, some external, some internal. The external sources are all reducible to ‘the political context.’ How many seats does the president’s party control in Congress? What is the status of the opposition party? What was the relative strength of the president and his party in the last election? What is his job approval rating? And so on. All of these factors set the boundaries for how easily the president can persuade others.”

“The internal sources of strength are the president’s political skills, which he deploys in particular circumstances. So the question becomes: How good is he at persuading others, given the political context? If political context is the science of presidential power, quantifiable in electoral results and congressional voting scores, persuasive skill is the art.”

“Obama is notable in that he has mastered some vital skills better than any recent predecessor, but he exhibits virtually no facility with others.”

“This president does not have a solid congressional outreach program, does not have a steady grasp of the expectations of legislators in either party, and does a notably poor job of communicating to them what he expects. Thus, a drifting and listless policy process, finally given direction by some power player outside the White House, often acting to avert imminent disaster, has marked almost every major deal during his tenure.”

“The ideal modern president, to borrow a phrase from Theodore Roosevelt, is one ‘actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.’ President Obama does not much care for the arena, and his successes came despite this distaste, not because of it.”

“’Insisting’ that Congress do something is a good way to make sure nothing happens. Instead, as Harry Truman once said, the president must spend his time ‘flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.’ Barack Obama does not do this. He thinks it beneath him. After four years in office, he still fails to grasp the essence of modern presidential power.” My latest column for the Weekly Standard | "Obama The Bargainer" http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-bargainer_699205.htmlJay Cost The Dow is up 15.3%, the S&P 500 is up 17.6%, and the Nasdaq Composite is up 14.1% for the last eight months. George Melloan (former deputy editor of the WSJ editorial page) writes that stock-market winners who have benefited from Fed policy should remember what happened to those who cashed in gains for more debt before 2008.

“In a 1996 speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan famously warned about the dangers when ‘irrational exuberance’ fueled asset inflation. By that he meant that rising values of stocks and real estate might reflect only a cheapened dollar, not an increase in their real worth.”

“We've learned a lot about asset inflation since that speech, but maybe not enough. The nearly 2,000-point rise in the Dow Jones Industrial Average since last June no doubt at least partly reflects asset inflation, since there has been very little in the economic or political outlook to justify it.”

“Urged on by his soon-to-be successor, Ben Bernanke, Mr. Greenspan would hold interest rates down too long, setting off a mid-2000s credit binge that sent assets soaring, home prices in particular. Congress developed a blasé attitude toward huge budget deficits, simply because Fed policy made them easy to finance. State and local governments overleveraged themselves. This was ‘irrational exuberance’ indeed.”

“At least Chairman Greenspan understood the risks. It is not clear that Chairman Bernanke is aware that he has now set the Fed's asset-inflation machine on automatic pilot by promising near-zero interest rates well out into the future. The longer the policy continues, the greater the difficulty in climbing down from the debt mountain it is creating, particularly the rapidly rising national debt.”

“Mr. Bernanke will have great difficulty letting go of the near-zero interest rate policy without severe consequences for both the Fed and the economy. The Fed's own economists recently warned that the Fed itself could lose as much as $100 billion on its vast portfolio when bond prices finally fall from their artificially elevated levels. Meanwhile, higher interest rates will cause the cost of financing government debt to skyrocket.”

“The ‘wealth illusion’ of asset inflation is seductive, which is why central banks in charge of a fiat currency and subject to no external disciplines so often drift in that direction. Politicians smile in satisfaction and powerful Washington lobbies cry for more… But an economy built on an illusion is hardly a sound structure. We may be doomed to learn that lesson once again before long.” George Melloan: The Fed's Asset-Inflation Machine http://on.wsj.com/VF02J9Opinion & Commentary David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General and head of the GAO from 1998-2008) writes that back in February 2001 he testified to the Senate Finance Committee with “professional, nonpartisan and nonideological advice” to balance our fiscal risks that went largely unheeded by both political parties. We are still paying the price for their bipartisan irresponsibility over the last twelve years.

“Back in February 2001, the United States had just experienced its first true operating budget surplus (excluding the Social Security surplus) and had actually paid down some of its public debt for the first time in decades. The country was also facing projected budget surpluses for the next 10 years and the possibility of paying off all outstanding public debt within that period. Washington was concerned about what to do with the budget surplus and the prospect of being debt-free.”

“Fiscal policy decisions should balance the wants and needs of today with the fiscal realities of tomorrow. The most prudent action 12 years ago would have been to pay down debt, providing a tangible benefit then and more fiscal flexibility later. I also noted then that the most imprudent actions would be to expand ‘entitlement benefits’ or engage in permanent tax cuts.”

“Since 2000, we have been experiencing a recurring case of Democratic big-spending policies and Republican low-tax policies, combined with additional spending for a range of contingencies. The result has been huge deficits, rapidly mounting debt, and a total liability and unfunded debt burden of $71.2 trillion, up from $20.6 trillion at the end of fiscal 2000, and growing by $8.2 million a minute. Considering all of these developments, what fiscal grade do the Congresses and the presidents of both parties who have held power since 2001 deserve? In my view, they deserve an F.”

“We need to engage in a range of reforms that will result in a reduction of debt-to-gross domestic product to about 60 percent by 2024. Moreover, we need to do so in a manner that is pro-growth, pro-opportunity, fiscally responsible and socially equitable.” WALKER: Uncle Sam gets an F in money management - Washington Times: http://wtim.es/YTcawoWashington Times Op George F. Will recommends a constitutional balanced budget amendment specifically to bind the habitual spenders looking to maximize their power, despite the various arguments against it. The one sufficient argument for this amendment comes from the late Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan, who pioneered the “public choice” school of analysis.

“Public choice theory applies economic analysis — essentially, the study of how incentives influence behavior — to politics… Public choice theory demystified politics by puncturing the grand illusion that nourishes government growth. It is the fiction that elected politicians and government administrators are more nobly motivated, unselfish and disinterested than are persons acting in the private sector.”

“Buchanan extended the idea of the profit motive to the behavior of politicians and bureaucrats, two groups seeking to maximize power the way many people in the private sector maximize monetary profits.”

“The political class is incorrigible because it is composed of — let us say the worst — human beings. They respond to incentives of self-interest. Their acquisitiveness is not for money but for the currency of power, which they act to retain and enlarge. This class can be constrained, if at all, not by exhorting them to become disinterested but by binding them with a constitutional amendment.” Shackling the spenders:http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-an-amendment-to-bind-the-spenders/2013/02/06/c93fda9c-6fc7-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html?wprss=rss_george-willGeorge F. Will

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Wednesday's Write-up


Happy 102nd Birthday to the 16th Republican President -- Ronald Reagan (photo from The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation)

@ColeToon

View the story "Wednesday's Write-up (2/6/13)" on Storify Wednesday's Write-up (2/6/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Wed, Feb 06 2013 16:10:07 Dr. E. Fuller Torrey (research psychiatrist and founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center) writes that President John F. Kennedy's dream of replacing state mental hospitals with federally funded community mental-health centers (CMHCs) is now a hugely expensive nightmare, and the federal government has effectively destroyed the mental illness treatment system.

“President Kennedy's proposal was historic because the public care of mentally ill individuals had been exclusively a state responsibility for more than a century. The federal initiative encouraged the closing of state hospitals and aborted the development of state-funded outpatient clinics in process at that time.”

“It has now become politically correct to claim that this federal program failed because not enough centers were funded and not enough money was spent. In fact, it failed because it did not provide care for the sickest patients released from the state hospitals. When President Ronald Reagan finally block-granted federal CMHC funds to the states in 1981, he was not killing the program. He was disposing of the corpse.”

“Approximately half of the mentally ill individuals discharged from state mental hospitals, many of whom had family support, sought outpatient treatment and have done well. The other half, many of whom lack family support and suffer from the most severe illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have done poorly… According to multiple studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center, these untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10% of all homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings), constitute 20% of jail and prison inmates and at least 30% of the homeless.”

“Altogether, the annual total public funds for the support and treatment of mentally ill individuals is now more than $140 billion… The evidence is overwhelming that this federal experiment has failed, as seen most recently in the mass shootings by mentally ill individuals in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz. It is time for the federal government to get out of this business and return the responsibility, and funds, to the states.” E. Fuller Torrey: Fifty Years of Failing America's Mentally Ill http://on.wsj.com/Xk2jcmOpinion & Commentary Jonathan S. Tobin writes that Michigan congressman Justin Amash thinks that we should mind our manners when tweeting about the abhorrent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a tyrannical, terrorist regime and an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier.

“Republican Justin Amash is a second generation Palestinian-American and is apparently under the impression that any comparison of even one of the vilest figures on the international stage to a monkey is a sign of racism against Persians or perhaps prejudice against Muslims and Arabs.”

“Race is the third rail of American politics and any comment that smacks of hatred is abhorrent. But the attempt to depict Ahmadinejad as a victim of Western prejudice lacks credibility. The day that Americans can’t crack wise about a purveyor of hatred is one in which we not only have lost our sense of humor but also our moral compass.”

“Indeed, the problem with Ahmadinejad is that too many Americans don’t take the hatred and the existential threat his regime poses to Israel as well as to the security of the world seriously because he is a comic figure and so easily lampooned.”

“Amash is probably trying to use McCain’s tweet to further the popular idea that American Muslims and Arabs are suffering under the burden of prejudice. Though the post-9/11 backlash is more myth than reality, it would have been a terrible thing had McCain actually slurred Muslims or Persians. But he didn’t. He just made a joke about Ahmadinejad and the poor primate that is alleged to have been strapped into a rocket by his terrorist masters… Amash’s faux outrage about the insult directed at the Iranian president tells us more about his priorities than it does about those of McCain.” A nation that can't joke about a hatemonger has lost its sense of humor & its moral compass. thttp://goo.gl/TxcCoJonathan S. Tobin So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space - wasn't he just there last week? "Iran launches monkey into space" http://news.yahoo.com/iran-launches-monkey-space-showing-missile-progress-003037176.htmlJohn McCain Re: Iran space tweet - lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?John McCain Maybe you should wisen up & not make racist jokes. “@SenJohnMcCain: Re: Iran space tweet - lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?”Justin Amash Investor’s Business Daily opines that we must deny Egypt military aid after President Mohammed Morsi’s indisputably anti-Semitic remarks - when he called Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs” and “blood-suckers” during a television broadcast in 2010.

“We know that Morsi is the Mideast darling of this administration. The Muslim Brotherhood honcho was groomed by the State Department to replace longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

“But his viciously anti-Semitic remarks, recorded on Egyptian TV not long before he took power, should instantly disqualify him from such military aid.”

“Dear Brothers,” he exhorted Egyptian Muslims, “we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all who support them.”

“Last year, the administration shipped the first of a batch of 20 new F-16 fighter jets and 125 Abrams M1A1 tanks to Egypt… It plans to deliver the entire order to Morsi by the end of this year.”

“Morsi, further, has formalized ties with Hamas and Tehran, sworn enemies of Israel. At the same time, he's threatened to torpedo the Camp David pact by referendum, knowing the majority of Egyptians favor tearing up the 30-year peace deal.”

“Before the regime in Cairo receives any more military aid, the president must condemn its Jew-bashing hate speech and certify that it's upholding both the spirit and the letter of the Camp David accords.” No F-16s For Bloodthirsty Anti-SemitesMideast: With the discovery of a video of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi condemning Jews and Israel, Obama should immediately halt shi... @DavidLimbaugh argues that the Senate must not confirm Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense if they believe he is ill-equipped to advise Obama on national security issues and would weaken America.

“Notwithstanding former Sen. Chuck Hagel's diminished view of the post – ‘I won't be in a policymaking position’ -- the secretary of defense is an exceedingly important position and must be filled with someone who understands the complexity and gravity of the threats we face.

“In his testimony at his confirmation hearing, Hagel demonstrated a remarkable unwillingness to clarify his past statements, a stunning misapprehension of the identity, intentions and capabilities of our enemies, and a disturbing ignorance of the critical subject matter on which he would be advising the president.”

“Under intense questioning, he wouldn't concede that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps -- one of the worst exporters of terrorism in the world and responsible for killing countless of Americans and supporting the Iraqi insurgency -- is a terrorist entity… How does one advise the president on terrorism when he apparently doesn't understand what it is and who some of its greatest practitioners are?”

“Perhaps most objectionable is Hagel's bigoted accusation that ‘the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people (in Congress).’ When pressed, Hagel wouldn't name any specific people he had in mind, nor did he come close to giving a satisfactory explanation for his disgraceful terminology -- because there is none.” David LimbaughFebruary 04, 2013 Column: The Senate Must Reject Hagel Printer Friendly Tweet The Senate's "advice and consent" role doesn't require it t... In the cover story of The Weekly Standard, Meghan Clyne (managing editor of National Affairs and former speechwriter to Mr. & Mrs. George W. Bush) believes that we need a better argument to younger voters against the massive federal debt. The two major consequences of excessive debt – increased borrowing costs and economic stagnation – will be most painful for today’s young Americans.

“Politicians are not known for originality. In their public speech, most cling to the security of clichéd stock phrases the way toddlers hold fast to threadbare blankets.”

“But while ‘our children’ are the favorite—and often the only—reason offered to whip debt now, this rhetorical standard seems stubbornly ineffective. Our debts are still here, still growing, with no solution in sight.

“Why does this ubiquitous line fail to spur Americans to demand fiscal reform? In part because it is poorly suited to those who most need convincing: younger Americans… According to a Pew Research Center analysis of national exit-polling data, younger voters also strongly prefer more expansive government: 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 said ‘government should do more to solve problems,’ compared to 35 percent among the 65-and-older group.”

“The young women who supported Obama because he forced employers to fund their preferred methods for not having children seem particularly unlikely to be persuaded by calls for generational forward-thinking.”

“The debts we face now are not like any debts we have seen before. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio has spiked in the past only during wars or major crises like the Great Depression… Our deficits today, and our projected debt over the next two decades, are not climbing in response to catastrophes. They are not projected to come back down.”

“Should the government have to pay significantly more to satisfy lenders concerned about its creditworthiness—or about the Federal Reserve inflating away the debt—American students, home buyers, entrepreneurs, drivers, and shoppers will pay more for their loans, too… Americans in their early 30s or younger are thus most likely to be taking out mortgages right around the time interest rates could begin skyrocketing as America’s debt becomes unmanageable.”

“When politicians tell the nation, including young voters, that the consequences of government’s reckless borrowing will be borne by ‘our children and grandchildren,’ they’re peddling a dangerous deception. If you’re alive and working now, you will bear those consequences.”

“If growing debts prolong our economic stagnation—extending today’s high unemployment, suppressed wages, and anemic growth—the results could be devastating for today’s younger Americans… Researchers have observed that most wage growth and job mobility happen in the first 10 years of a person’s career; for young people now in that crucial stretch, years of debt-induced economic languor (not to mention recession) could be poisonous to their lifetime earning prospects.”

“All of this adds up to a dire warning that should be heeded above all by the young Americans whose aspirations are most likely to be crushed by our fiscal mismanagement. But it is unlikely to be, as long as our politicians insist that the reason to control our debt is our ‘children and grandchildren.’ This throwaway line may appeal to older Americans, but they already vote for candidates who promise to cut spending and reform entitlements. It now desperately needs to be supplemented with an honest, fact-based argument aimed at the self-interest of younger voters.” Abandon 'the Children'Politicians are not known for originality. In their public speech, most cling to the security of clichéd stock phrases the way toddlers h... Neil Irwin writes that another $1 trillion deficit – the gap between what America is capable of and what it is actually producing – is getting worse, not better, and will widen even further this year.

“Potential GDP is the CBO’s best guess of what the U.S. economy is capable of churning out. If almost all the people who wanted a job had one, if factories were running at their capacity, if office building and shopping malls were full, our collective national output would be the dark blue line.” (see chart below)

“Yes, the economy has been growing for the last 3½ years. But the ‘output gap,’ the difference between what we’re capable of producing and what we’re actually producing, hasn’t actually closed.”

“Add it all up, and this is the scary vision of the economy presented by the CBO data: We had a really bad downturn in 2008-2009. Since then, we’ve been growing, but we haven’t made up the lost ground. Instead, in 2012 and 2013, we are set to lose further ground rather than make it up. And we’re producing below our potential even after adjusting for the fact that our potential was damaged by the recession.” CBO-GDP and Potential GDPBrian_Empric The most depressing graph in the new CBO report, and the other trillion dollar deficit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/06/the-most-depressing-graph-in-the-new-cbo-report/Neil Irwin Stuart Rothenberg (editor & publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report) notes that the odds are against Senate Democrats in 2014, with 21 seats to defend. Republicans must win 20 out of 35 races to regain a majority in the Senate, holding our 14 seats and flipping 6 Democratic seats.

There are 6 seats currently held by Democrats in states where Romney beat Obama by double-digits: Montana (+13.7%), Alaska (+14.0%), Louisiana (+17.2%), South Dakota (+18.0%), Arkansas (+23.7%), and West Virginia (+26.8%).

“The biggest factor in how the cycle turns out probably isn’t candidate recruiting, fundraising or the number of open seats, though each will affect the fight for the Senate next year. It is almost certainly going to be President Barack Obama’s popularity and the electorate’s sense of how he is doing.”

“With Senate contests next year in four (six) strongly anti-Obama states, Democrats can’t afford a second Obama midterm election with a national electorate that wants to send a message of dissatisfaction with the president.”

“The president isn’t on the ballot next year, so the only way for anti-Obama voters to express their opinion of the president is to vote against his party’s Senate nominees. And that makes Senate seats in anti-Obama states in 2014 much more difficult to hold than Senate seats in anti-Obama states were in 2012.” Rothenberg: Obama Looms Large Over Democrats' 2014 Fight to Retain the Senate http://roll.cl/11DELXw via @StuPoliticsRoll Call Alexander Burns & Maggie Haberman report that Florida Governor Rick Scott is internally budgeting $100 million for his reelection campaign next year, if Charlie Crist is the opposing nominee.

“Scott’s 2014 campaign — possibly pitting him against party-switching former GOP Gov. Charlie Crist as the Democratic candidate — won’t just be a jacked-up version of the 2010 version, knowledgeable Republicans said. In addition to darkening the sky with paid media, Scott’s team is looking at the possibility of creating a state-specific data and analytics division, either within the campaign or at the Republican Party of Florida.”

“Crist, who currently leads in Democratic primary polling, has not said definitively that he will run for governor again in 2014. At least a handful of other Democrats are considering the race, including former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, state Sen. Nan Rich and former Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, the 2010 Democratic nominee.”

“Polls show Scott is in a dangerous predicament: a Quinnipiac University poll in December pegged his approval rating at just 36 percent. Last month, the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling put that number slightly lower, at 33 percent. PPP found Scott trailing Crist by 14 percentage points in a general election.”

“The biggest reason not to count Scott out, Republicans say, is the uncertainty surrounding his Democratic opposition. Crist may be polling strongly now, but Republicans believe the ex-governor is vulnerable to attacks on his glaring political flip-flops and his connection to a campaign finance scandal within the state GOP.” Embattled Rick Scott plans $100M campaign vs. Charlie Crist: http://politi.co/X2S67RPOLITICO

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Weekend Potpourri

@natebeeler

@AUG_RickMcKee

View the story "Weekend Potpourri (2/2/13-2/3/13)" on StorifyWeekend Potpourri (2/2/13-2/3/13)http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.comStorified by Brian Empric· Sun, Feb 03 2013 17:23:44Daniel P. Kessler (senior fellow at the Hoover Institution) writes that every one of the main claims made for ObamaCare is turning out to be false. The law was sold by liberal Democrats on four grounds – lower health-care costs, smaller deficits, preservation of existing insurance, and increased productivity. All of these justifications have “become increasingly implausible.”

“In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.”

“Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare—the country's largest unfunded liability—can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse. It depends on Congress and the president not only imposing Medicare cuts that they have proven unwilling to make but also imposing cuts that they have already specifically undone, most notably to Medicare Advantage, a program that helps millions of seniors pay for private health plans.”

“Indeed, disruption of people's existing insurance is one of the law's stated goals. On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is ‘essential,’ whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the ‘Cadillac tax’ on costly insurance plans.”

“That's just the intended consequences. One of the law's unintended consequences is that some employers will drop coverage in response to new regulations and the availability of subsidized insurance in the new exchanges. How many is anybody's guess.”Daniel Kessler: ObamaCare's Broken Promises http://on.wsj.com/11bCaVgOpinion & CommentaryJoel Kotkin writes that the old Confederacy’s long-term economic prospects shine bright, due to demographic trends, economic growth patterns, state business climates, flows of foreign investment and, finally and most surprisingly, a shift of educated workers and immigrants to an archipelago of fast-growing urban centers.

“The South still attracts the most domestic migrants of any U.S. region. Last year, it boasted six of the top eight states in terms of net domestic migration — Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia… The top four losers were deep blue New York, Illinois, New Jersey and California.”

“Perhaps more importantly, these states are nurturing families, in contrast to the Great Lakes states, the Northeast and California.”

“Why are people moving to what the media tends to see as a backwater? In part, it’s because economic growth in the South has outpaced the rest of the country for a generation and the area now constitutes by far the largest economic region in the country… Indeed this year the four best states for business, according to CEO Magazine, were Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee. They are also much less unionized, an important factor for foreign and expanding domestic firms.”

“In the long run some critics suggest that the region’s historically lower education levels ensure that it will remain second-rate… Yet the education gap is shrinking, particularly in the South’s growing metropolitan areas.”

“Perhaps more revealing, an analysis by Praxis Strategy Group suggest a good portion of these new educated residents are coming from places such as greater New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. The South’s new breed of carpetbaggers increasingly bring diplomas, skills and high wage jobs with them. The main attraction: not only jobs, but lower housing prices, lower taxes and, overall, a more affordable quality of life.”

“Rather than fade way, expect Southern influence instead to grow over time. It is more likely that the culture of the increasingly child-free northern tier and the slow-growth coasts will, to evoke the past, be the ones gone with the wind.”How The South Will Rise To Power Again http://fb.me/2cwctaDNuNew GeographyFrom the Washington Free Beacon, with videos of each of the worst moments from Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing:
1.   Hagel can’t answer yes or no on whether the Iraq surge worked
2.   Cruz roasts Hagel over agreeing that America is ‘world’s bully’
3.   Inhofe asks Hagel, Why has Iran endorsed you?
4.   Hagel says he supports the president’s ‘strong position on containment’…
5.   …and walks it back four minutes later
6.   Hagel calls Iran’s government ‘elected, legitimate’…
7.   …and walks it back
Hagel's 7 Worst Moments in Round One http://wfb.tc/11kUL0nWash. Free BeaconWall Street Journal Review & Outlook shares the perspective that Hagel will be a novice at a dangerous time.

“The biggest question hanging over Chuck Hagel's nomination to lead the Pentagon is whether he has the conviction and knowledge to protect U.S. security amid growing world turmoil and with a White House bent on cutting U.S. defenses. His confirmation hearing on Thursday was hardly reassuring.”

“The showdown over Iran's nuclear program will probably come to a head in the next four years, yet Mr. Hagel tiptoed around the issue, promising only that 'all options must be on the table.' He did not sound like a Defense Secretary who would offer advice on the use of force that he knew Valerie Jarrett might not like.”

“Mr. Hagel would be the first Pentagon chief who has endorsed the campaign to draw down U.S. nuclear forces to zero. In the hearing, he denied he would support unilateral U.S. nuclear cuts, and he said ‘Congress has to be involved’ in any Administration efforts to negotiate reductions with Russia. Alas, no one pinned him down on whether being ‘involved’ includes the Senate ratifying a treaty.”

“Perhaps most dismaying is that Mr. Hagel didn't appear deeply read or knowledgable about the department he'll be running. This may be understandable because in the Senate he was never on the Armed Services Committee.”The Hagelian Method http://on.wsj.com/11bCcwpOpinion & CommentaryNate Silver blogs that his FiveThirtyEight model estimates that conservative Republican Steve King would run a net of six percentage points weaker than moderate Tom Latham for Tom Harkin’s open Senate seat in Iowa in 2014. In Georgia, the Republicans should be favored in 2014 because of the state’s partisan lean. In West Virginia, Silver believes the Republicans are favored to pick up John D. Rockefeller IV’s seat, because of the strength of Shelley Moore Capito as a candidate, as opposed to a challenger from the right.

“The model that FiveThirtyEight uses to forecast Senate races relies in part on evaluating candidates’ ideology as determined by DW-Nominate and other systems.

“DW-Nominate scores are on a scale that runs from negative 1 for an extremely liberal candidate to positive 1 for an extremely conservative one. A score of zero represents a candidate who is exactly in the middle of the ideological spectrum.

“What matters for the FiveThirtyEight model is not what the candidate’s ideology is in an absolute sense, but how it compares to the voters in his state.”[new article] High-Risk Primaries Could Cost Republicans in 2014 http://nyti.ms/W1broANate Silver