Redstate

... some of this, there is an interesting piece by John Hindraker over on Powerline that ought to be required reading for the naysayers.

If you want to win the minds of the doubters, tell them what they're getting for their two lives per day, for their hundreds of billions of dollars spent.  Because it's simply not clear enough.

It doesn't matter how few deaths there are.  It doesn't matter if there are more murders at home. Not yet "earned the right" to be weary?  Doesn't mean anything, practically speaking.  These things will not make people feel less weary because they do not tell them what they are getting for the price of the war.

The war has a terrible and massive cost.  What is the return?  More security?  After July 7, 54% of people polled (CNN/USA Today/Gallup) felt the action in Iraq has made the US less safe from terrorism.  Democracy?  Americans simply don't care that much about Iraqis.  WMDs...well, don't mention that.  All the Big Reasons that make the war Worth It are not resonating with the public.

President Bush has his work cut out for him, I think.

Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher wants to band together all newspapers editors to get us out of Iraq...http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?
vnu_content_id=1001019155

What is the point, war should be the last option. The author forgets Bush was to my generation a draft dodger by going into the reserves. The author forgets that Bush missed serving in Alabama, seems like a trait. But the primary point the author misses is reason, motivation, why are we in Iraq? To promote democracy? when have we gone to war over changing the politics of a foreign government? And why pick Iraq, lots of choices out there. I found it unbelievable that the author did not mention the dead in Iraq either.  

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/0824_legion_fonda.shtml

John Hinderaker has an excellent post on this at Powerline today.  Here is the salient point he quotes:

"between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one."

http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep1998/n09291998_9809295.html

I agree with you completely. The president needs to remind us why we are doing what we must, lest the terrorists provide that reminder first.  He should hire Arthur Chrenkoff, or someone of like mind and talent, to compile the good news from Iraq, and he needs to give us a weekly update HIMSELF, if not in prime time, then Saturday on the radio.

Ok:

What often disappoints me about my generation is the shocking lack of willingness that we have to defend ourselves and our culture from threats - and the weak-kneed lack of resolve to see even the most banal conflict through to its conclusion. Nowhere has this become more evident than in the current conflict in Iraq.

For some Liberals, the line that the war in Iraq is making us less safe secure is just some backup talking point used when the "no blood for oil" playset of maxims fails (supra). For others, like me, it's actually believed: Iraq, because of errors of both omission and commission the whole way through, has not made us safer. And I don't see how people who disagree with the initial premise that the Iraq War has made us safer can be characterized as "lacking resolve" or "weak-kneed." Without an acceptance of the initial premise what would we be lacking the resolve to do?

I don't want to hijack this thread by making it a slog between those who can justify the Iraq War and those who don't believe those justifications. I think we all know that will get stupid and messy and I don't need others to doubt the war's effectiveness in order to doubt it myself. So it's lucky for me that you included, in your last line, a sentiment that we can both agree on and that could potentially resolve the dissent on the premise that this war has made us safer. This one:

I call upon the President to do so now. Remind us now, and remind us often, why this war is worth fighting. And remind us, most importantly of all, even for those who simply will not agree that the war is worth fighting, why immediate withdrawal represents disaster, and will cost more American lives in the long run than staying the course until the conflict is done.

We'll see if he can make that case to me, the other good faith, nonpacifist, antiwar Liberals, and an ever more wary public. And then there's the constitution, of course, but that's a separate issue for another time...

I was reading an interview with a national guard officer (I can't remember if he was in a NH or NE unit).  He had lost a few men in his unit-not many, but he made the comment that he has lost far more soldiers in his unit to auto accidents than he has in combat.

Sometimes we lose some perspective.

That said I think Bush's biggest weakness is his inability to really take the case to the people-I think part of it is he just isn't a media president.  Reagan and Clinton were both media presidents-they in general liked to answer questions and make speeches, Bush would rather quietly do his work, and pretend like the media doesn't exist.

It would help him some, if the WH had a better press secretary-but we don't have that.

Is a direct result in the misguided (or purposeful) teaching of American history.  For too long have the public schools at all levels tried to instill in the brain of the pupil that America is a horrible country built upon oppression and horror.  

I do not believe in that revisionist and propagandist version of history but many young people do.  When history teachers spend more time pandering to special interest groups and ignore the greatness of this country and Western Civilization in general it infuses the minds of the students that this country is not worth fighting to protect and promote the ideals of liberal democracy and free market capitalism.  

I have previously stated my position on GWB's lack of continued vocal commentary regarding the war.  In a nutshell I believe that GWB needs to have more regular televised addresses to the nation.  Pres conferences, speeches, you take your pick.  But have them in prime time.  That way the MSM is forced to cover him.  It will also make GWB give clear reasons for his decisions.

I am a criminal defense attorney. When I only do my job as legal counsel I am only fulfilling one portion of my job as an attorney.  If my client does not know why I am doing something, the what sometimes does not matter.  And since a lot of my client's have short attention spans, limited education, and a multitude of personal problems I need to communicate that much more.  So does the president.

I call on the President to address the nation every two weeks.  I want to hear him defend America, American principles, and our actions.  I am willing to follow him just about anywhere.  Others need their hand held.  A good leader shows the way for those need showing, helps those that need help getting there, and blazes a clear trail that can be seen by all from behind.

Our generation, on the other hand, in becoming weary of a war not yet three years old, fought by an army composed entirely of volunteers, in which we are suffering an average of two deaths per day, has demonstrated itself to be the most spineless and weak-kneed generation in recent American history.

Absolutely.  Your generation and your president are refusing to even pick up the bill for the war - instead, they are passing it on to the next generation.  It's hard to make a case that war is important if you aren't even willing to pay for it.

It is unexcusable, on the other hand, to find the growing number of Americans who are now advocating immediate withdrawal, regardless of the future consequences upon the strength of our bargaining posture.

Absolutely not.  You are assuming that our presence in Iraq is helping achieve our goals there.  People who advocate for withdrawal, including Senators Hagel and Feingold, believe that our presence in Iraq is a fundamental part of the problems there and not part of a long-term solution.

Our generation, on the other hand, in becoming weary of a war not yet three years old, fought by an army composed entirely of volunteers, in which we are suffering an average of two deaths per day, has demonstrated itself to be the most spineless and weak-kneed generation in recent American history.

Do you think this most spineless and weak-kneed generation has been properly educated as to the reasons we are in Iraq with no plan to leave, ever?

What a capable use of known facts from the lefty wiki.

Have fun with that. Be sure to characterize him that way in mass mailings. I like the sound of sixty years of political dominance for the GOP.

To #4 ...

Ho-hum .. recycled Michael Moore ... is that all ya got?

As to the subject:

While I disagree with the "get out of Crawford" line - the President is President wherever he is, so he can do the job from Crawford - I agree he's not doing nearly enough in defending his policy.

The newsies aren't going to focus on the good things happening if they're given a choice.  Short of the President himself saying it, and then only in a forum where the newsies can't edit him, they always have that choice.

He should simply come out and say,

"There's a saying in the news business - 'If it bleeds, it leads.'  What it means, of course, is the stories which are of the most interest to the media, because they think they are of interest to you, are those in which bad things happen to someone else.  Applied to Iraq, that means daily reports on the number of servicemen and women who died the day before."

"You don't get word of the good things happening in Iraq because the media does not think you're interested in that.  I don't share their opinion, so I asked for this opportunity to tell you what is being accomplished, day by day, in Iraq by the men & women who serve in our armed forces."

"First, though, I want to address something else, and that is the common characterization we see in the media of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as 'children.'"  

"Nothing could be further from the truth.  They are adults - men and women, full partners in the effort to protect the nation they love, who volunteered to do the difficult things so that others would not have to.  Their choices deserve our respect; suggesting, as characterizing them as 'children' does, that they don't know what they are doing dishonors their dedication to service and bravery in that service."

And then on to discuss the progress being made.

how many accidental deaths have American military personnel suffered since the war on iraq began?

also how does the accidental death rate from 1988 to 1996 (754) compare to the combat deaths plus accidental deaths from 2002 to today? is it about a ratio of 1:2

would it be safe to say american soldiers are dying at twice the rate they were before George W. Bush took office?

I don't understand how can you reconcile these two statements.

The liberals in this country love to berate the President for spending so much time in Crawford, accusing him of taking a five week "vacation."

However, it is time to criticize the President for being in Crawford for so long for an entirely different reason.

Are you saying it is OK for conservatives to criticize the president's long vacations but not OK for liberals to criticize?

This is among the most tiresome of memes ejaculated almost involuntarily by the left.  Fine.  Are you worried about the cost of the war.  List all of the federal programs you are willing to cut or cancel to pay for the war, now.  Because a tax increase in the midst of a slow recovery from recession wasn't. ever. going. to. happen.  Not under a sane administration.  Compile the list, or shut up.

I am saying that their reasons are illegitimate, not that their complaint is illegitimate.

In several places, you contrast the cost (in human lives) between the current Iraq War and prior military wars.  What seems lacking is any thought to the benefit received in exchange for that cost.  Two soldiers per day is not a very high casualty rate when compared to the Battle of the Bulge, perhaps, but it is a high price to pay when the current political administration who started the war can't seem to really justify why we went to war without resorting to attempted connections between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.  The president also doesn't seem to be able to point to any clear endpoint for the struggle, and he hasn't done a good job of setting expectations of what benefit the United States will get from fighting the war in the first place.

I opposed the Iraqi War from the beginning, and yet I do not advocate immediate withdrawal.  War is one of things, like jumping off a cliff, that you cannot quit once you've started.

Simply put, it's too late to pull out now.  To do so would create a power vacuum.  To drop what we are doing and leave Iraq now would only seal our fate that we'd be back again to fight an even uglier war in a few years, this time against a more powerful insurgency backed by the Iranians or Syrians or someone like that.  

We can't leave until the Iraqi people have a government that is functional enough to withstand outside threats and internal strife, and there is really no way to know when that will be the case.

I think many Americans are beginning to feel mislead by the President.  I often wonder what the results would be if you had taken a poll of Americans before the Iraq War and asked them how many American deaths they expected to incur as a result of the war.  I don't think the American people were prepared for a long, drawn-out struggle.  Americans were prepared for a short mini-war, with a short duration and minimal casualties.  I don't think the administration itself was prepared for anything but a short struggle.  That's why the prolonged fighting seems so frustrating.  The administration planned a war and still seems unprepared to deal with the consequences.

I don't see the national mood towards the war picking up any time soon, unless the new Iraqi government beats all expectations, taking pressure off of American troops in the process.  If, on the other hand, the casualty rate keeps to recent levels, we'll be hitting 2,000 American deaths around the beginning of the Christmas Season, and 2,500 troop deaths as the 2006 campaign season starts to heat up.

We didn't choose to fight this war at this time in this manner -- you're the ones who have to figure out how to pay for it.  I wonder if there's a recent unnecessary tax cut that could be rescinded . ..  .  

There was no urgency that required acting before an international coalition could have been built, or that we go in with insufficient troops to quell the insurgency before it began.

Remember, this all started getting messy once we toppled Baghdad only to see it devolve into lawlessness.  

Cancelling tax cuts which had not even taken effect yet would have been a good way to pay for the war.  You could also cancel NMD, severely curtail agricultural subsidies, etc.  Has Bush proposed cuts to pay for the war?  When he does, then and only then will I shut up.

Because a tax increase in the midst of a slow recovery from recession wasn't. ever. going. to. happen.  Not under a sane administration.

You mean like in 1993?  That sure crashed the economy, didn't it?

"We don't like the war, so we won't help figure out how to pay for it."  The politics of petulence.

I'm weary of sugar coated information and statements that mislead us. I'm weary of politicians that seem to be out of touch with reality. I'm weary of media telling me what to think. I'm weary that analysts think that in a place that has nothing but conflict from the beginning of time that democracy would be embraced. What were we thinking?

Can we admit we made a mistake? You can only hit your thumb with a hammer so many times before it starts to hurt really bad.

monomania; this is an article of religious faith with you, apparently: that taxes must never, ever be cut.  How about cutting back on the programs that account for the majority of nondefense federal spending?  Eliminating a few makework bureaucracies?

We both have programs and policies we like to consider sacrosanct; your problem is that your set of such programs is rather enormous compared to mine, meaning that you've got a lot more to give in these discussions.

And no, there was no recession at the time of the Clinton tax hike.  The recovery had already begun.

It goes without saying though that by nominated John Kerry and John Edwards as their 2004 presidential tickets, Democrats forfeited any legitimacy to complain about the decision to go to war. Didn't like the decision?  Then they should have nominated someone who didn't vote for it.

Repeal the Medicare Prescription drug benefit and Tom Harkin's farm bill.

out of both sides of their mouths.  Or, as an Arab friend always used to say, with a forked tongue.

the sort of thing I'm driving at.  To the left, half of a trillion in tax cuts IS the apocalypse, while 1.5 trillion in projected new spending is just swell.  What kind of candyland do they live in?

Republicans control the White House and Congress.  Surely they can figure this out.

deciding how to pay for the war was the President's job and Congress' job.  They decided to charge it. You might think that was a great decision; others might not.  Either way it certainly seems like a legitimate topic of discussion.  

If the President had actually vetoed a spending bill or suggested (heck he's President he could have demanded!) that a program be cut to pay for the war, if he'd just once said "we need to tighten our belts in a time of war"  and then the "left" stood in his way or refused to do it, it might be different.  But he hasn't chosen to do those things.  Instead, in some sense, we have been fighting this war with "other people's money"  and when people think that they are playing with OPM they don't care too much how it's spent- and personally I think that was the whole idea.

If we are going to continue this war, I think we need to pay for it currently and I would gladly support an across the board cut of the entire federal budget, or every part of it which can be legally cut. Let the chips fall where they may.  We have a war to pay for.  I'd also be for tubing any and all federal subsidies.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

How about all those Congressional Democrats that voted for the Iraq war resoltuotion? They part of your we, or is it just those standing in the ditch with Cindy what's her name?

Clinton signed off on Iraq regime change in 1998, was that OK with the 'we people'? At the time Clinton used WMDs as one of his reasons, those be the 'we people's' WMDs? So now the 'we people' are mad because regime change happened on Bush's watch ... it was Clinton's resolution, blame him.

Short memory.

My first priority is responsible budgeting.  If Republicans want to propose spending cuts to pay for the war, I encourage them to do so.  Failing that, raise revenue.  Bush and the Republicans in Congress are doing neither.  You asked me what I'd do, and I responded.  What about the people who, you know, actually run the country?

Right now Republicans are better because they're more willing to discuss reforming entitlement programs (which are a larger problem than discretionary spending) and they still don't want to spend as much as Democrats on discretionary spending.

But if they fail to deliver on entitlement reform, the latter may not be enough.

If Republicans believe that the war is more important than the prescription drug bill and the farm bill, they ought to cut the latter.  But they're not, and for a simple reason.  They'd rather get senior and farm state votes than accept responsiblity for their generation.

I'm still paying for the Spanish American War, why shouldn't Americans 100 years from now be paying for this war? If we can deliver a better world to them, why should they get a free ride?

Look, you don't like the war, you don't like GWB, you don't like the fact that Republicans control the government, you don't like the conservative agenda but you sure like to whine about it and you come up with the lamest arguments to justify all the whining.

To the left, half of a trillion in tax cuts IS the apocalypse, while 1.5 trillion in projected new spending is just swell.  What kind of candyland do they live in?

I think the prescription drug program is a bad idea, and government should only do exactly what the bill prohibits: using its buying power to lower prices.  However, the Democrats' version had one thing over the Republicans' version: it was paid for (by cancelling tax cuts).  At least they were willing to accept responsiblity for the costs.

... if the left insists that the Republicans figure this out and they refuse to offer any ideas then what the h*ll do we need with the Democrats anyway? If there are no positive ideas coming from the lef then they are simply taking up space.

I have an idea: we could save a bundle by turning off the electicty and heating/AC in the apparently unused Democrat Senate and House offices.

raising revenue. I guess you haven't heard.

The author did not do a very good job of stringing together lame talking points. It is widely known that many on the left are self-loathing individuals who seek to have their own country harmed, defeated, and humiliated. They feel that we deserve it, because we are bad. What they really need is kinky sex, but they do not know this and so they gleefully perform treasonous acts that give aid and comfort to our enemies. But no one comes to tie them up and whip them, and so they achieve no release. Unrewarded onanism is surely one of Nature's darkest punishments, but they are often too wrapped up in themselves to see the joke. There could be other talking points, but this will have to do for now; any more would give pleasure, and there will be none of that.

... different than what the newspaper types are already doing? They started complaining about the failures almost as soon as we crossed the Line of Departure and the dreaded "quagmire" appeared before our troops even reached Najaf.

most of the people on your side of the aisle would weep, moan and wail and the thought that your favoured programs might be reduced in size and scope.  Surely you're not trying to impose a catch-22 on us....

... come up with something new? "Bush as a draft dodger",  "Bush was a coward", yadda yadda. No wonder the left wants to simply get out of Iraq; the left hasn't had a fresh idea since the Great Society and that was a flaming disaster with oak-leaf clusters.

is "accept[ing] responsibility".

Stealing more greenbacks from taxpayers is being responsible.

Ooo-kay.

Let's be honest. The real issue is that no one in Washington, in either Party, is willing to admit what we are fighting FOR, and who are enemy really IS. Without this we have neo-Isolationism tinged with Anti-Semitism (it's the Jewish Neo-Cons! Israel!) and excessive political correctness in the other Party (yes, Reps are VERY politically correct). This dynamic is of course exacerbated by the noxious influence of the Saudi money spread around to both Parties to buy influence.

We are generally fighting, however imperfectly, to protect American lives at home and abroad from mass murder by Salafist/Qutbist madmen who have a vision of "back to the Future" centered around making the entire world look like the Taliban's Afghanistan. Our enemy is just that, Salafists who wish to first destroy all the existing Islamic states, then combine them into one Caliphate, then conquer the rest of the World. This isn't really Hitler's dream so much as the return of Mohammed's sixth century jihad and the reaction to the failure of Islam as a political system to compete economically and socially with Western Culture. However there is no will to admit this at any time by either Party, for fear of painting this as a "civilizational conflict" which sadly it is (but not by our choice).

Politically, both Parties have reacted to this Salafist terror, starting with Richard Nixon ignoring the PLO assassinating our diplomats (the PLO then consisting of essentially Salafists with a thin veneer of Marxism on top), continuing with Carter's impotence against our Embassy hostages, Reagan's "run-away" strategy in Beirut and elsewhere, Bush 41's stopping short of Baghdad, Clinton's impotent responses to Saddam's assassination plot against Bush 41, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, Kenya and Tanzania, and the Cole (shared it must be said with Bush 43) by the broad strategy of pretending it never happened and was not an escalating threat.

Both the Left and the Right (see the Powell Doctrine and "realists" like Scowcroft) feel the US is forever in danger of fighting the Vietnam War, hence a refusal to see the costs of constant retreat over thirty years of Salafist terror in various guises (Salafism being defined as the desire for a "pure" Islamic society untainted by any Western culture, and getting there by extreme violence directed against Western Society). Sept. 11th was the direct result of simply ignoring or running away or responding with "measured" missile strikes or treating terror activities against the US as minor law enforcement problems, with the fear that anything else will turn into a losing Vietnam effort. There were no real consequences to terror directed against America, hence the attacks simply escalated and got worse over time, which was utterly predictable.

Sept. 11th woke up the American people, briefly, to the costs of this policy, hence military action to topple the Taliban despite strong resistance from folks like Biden, the Media (predicting defeat/quagmire/Vietnam) and the Left. Afghanistan is a case study in the danger of a failed violent society/nation being used by Salafist enemies to co-ordinate and stage attacks on the US.

Iraq was the result of the desire to finish the left overs from the Gulf War which were becoming unsustainable, the perception that Saddam was a massive potential menace coupled with Osama and unwilling to simply stop conspiring against the US (Saddam was given several opportunities to simply "get with the program" ala Musharref), and the view that unlike more dangerous enemies such as Saudi Arabia (finance base for Salafists), Pakistan (deeply involved with Salafists), or Iran (allies of convenience with Salafists) there existed political will to simply "solve" the 12 year old Saddam Problem. Recall in 2003 we had twelve years of constant air patrols (air combat in all but name), missile strikes, bombing runs (Desert Fox 98-99) and troops in Saudi acting as a tripwire. The idea being that removing the Saddam regime would be a demonstrable threat to the three big enemies: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and force them to rein in the Salafist terrorists operating in their countries against the US.

Unfortunately the American People, Press, and both Parties largely went back to sleep after April 2003, and once again view the World and the threat of Salafism as "law enforcement" or political issues to be managed, as though 9/11 could never happen again (and indeed, never happened) because the US had the magic safety fairy looking after it. Hence the continued isolationism reminiscent of the Republican Party before Pearl Harbor, Democrats after 1968, and the noxious influence of Vietnam.

Bush is extremely vulnerable to criticism he has not been ruthless and massive in removing the threats (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), focusing instead on a subsidiary threat (Saddam),  but instead he was blessed by the Media and Democratic Party who view everything through Vietnam and pose the Iraq War as a question of morality, international prestige, and legalism. Dems and the Media ignore that Osama is our main enemy in Iraq, and retreat/defeat as in Vietnam does not bring an internally focused "Fortress America" but rather escalating attacks by people who have demonstrable proof that America will simply submit and surrender if you kill enough Americans (approximately 2,000).

Dems are not even willing to FIGHT Osama bin Laden, Bush however imperfectly is willing to fight him in limited means. Until Vietnam stops being the failed 60's lens through which the problem is viewed, I don't see anything getting any better and Bush for all his communication and political flaws is all we have to fight bin Laden.

I think one strategy for the WH would be to replace Mr. McClellan.  He is not very good and has a horrible presence.  I can't imagine that Bush couldn't find another loyal spokesperson that meets his criteria (give the press as little as possible) with the same style and panache as Ari did.

It is government for the people by the people.  You run the government.  Just because you are not an elected representative doesn't mean your brain stops functioning.  You certainly complain enough to give the impression that you have some thoughts about the situation. So instead of saying things like  "people who actually run the country".  Say something like, "Gee perhaps we should examine the National Endowment for the Arts.  Is the $111 Million budge they recieve give the tax payers a benefit that offsets the cost?  No, well perhaps we should reduce or eliminate that program"

Why can you not state your objections to Bush, the Right, and conservatism like that instead of a whine that gives the impression that you are either a simpleton or a knee jerk liberal?  (I am not saying you are a simpleton, just your post gives that impression.)

Since the Senate Dems have the power to filibuster appropriations bills, they have some responsibility as well.

Now if they were willing to concede to the GOP and commit to not using the filibuster or the threat of filibuster on any spending bills or recissions bills, then we can have a serious conversation.

Which is what Democrats meant but couldn't bring themselves to say when they proposed doing the same thing Canada does for drugs.  Of course the fact that Canada doesn't produce new drugs like the United States nor does it have the generic market (which BTW is why we're paying less overall for drugs than Canada) seems to have escaped their notice when the focus is on the prices for some name-brand drugs.

It should be noted that the other major objection that Democrats presented was that they opposed means-testing the drug benefit which IMO shows how unserious they are about any meaningful reform of Medicare and Medicaid.

Instead, in some sense, we have been fighting this war with "other people's money"  and when people think that they are playing with OPM they don't care too much how it's spent- and personally I think that was the whole idea.

I couldn't agree more.  Spending Other People's Money (basically, our children's) is an excellent way of getting elected, so that's why they do it.

What, if i might take this threat off-topic for a moment, motivates the democratic obsession with single-payer health care?  It isn't as though it has been tried somewhere and found to work.  It almost seems as though they like that whole power over life and death thing....

I don't agree with the writer.  I think that there can be no meaningful discussion of the morality of this war or any war based solely on the number of American KIA.

Remember Kerry's "I voted for the $78 billion before I voted against it"?  The one he voted for, which had the support of the Democratic caucus (including those who opposed the war) cancelled future tax cuts to pay for the $78 billion.

That should tell you something, Jacob.  And it's only 2:3, not 1:2, btw.  

A soldier is actually safer to be in the sand Actively engaged in combat that to be in the US in a car.  Sad, but true.  

It means if the taxpayers don't like it, they can vote out the people raising their taxes.  It also means if taxpayers don't think the war is worth their money, they can vote against people who started the war.  Instead, the next generation is made to pay for it, since they can't vote yet.  

Spending money means paying for it.  That's pretty much Responsibility 101.  Both lawmakers and voters should be required to pass that class.

If the voters think we should pay for war by cutting elsewhere, they would vote for Republicans; if they think we should pay for war with higher taxes, they would vote for Democrats.  Who ever has the better idea wins, but everybody is responsible - how's that?

Democrats have tried to impose fiscal responsibility by voting for Pay-As-You-Go, by opposing tax cuts, and by proposing to repeal tax cuts to pay for the war.  Republicans have a working majority and have stopped these efforts cold.  Since the Democrats have tried without success to be more fiscally responsible, how about the GOP?

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

War is easier to bear if thousands of faceless people are are dying on Omaha Beach, and there's no 24 hour cable news endlessly covering who each of them is. Statistics aren't emotional.

And without state actors, our enemies are a lot less tangible.

So war has gotten emotionally harder on two fronts.

This isn't to say we haven't become a bunch of hypochondriacs. Just look at how stiff the British upper lip was during the Blitz and how emotional they are now. The only nation with any serious resolve is likely Israel.

And Kerry didn't proposed spending LESS. That's the democrats main problem when it comes to budgeting. They're just NOT believable. Kerry also had said (on MTP) that even if the amendment to raise taxes to pay for the $87B had failed, he would still vote for it. But then he didn't. Just. Not. Believable.

"It means if the taxpayers don't like it, they can vote out the people raising their taxes."

It started in 1994.

Neither budget nor reconciliation bills can be filibustered.

Repealing tax cuts is never the answer.  Letting people keep more of the money that they earn is both moral and economically sound policy.  So that defeats two of your three suggestions.

And instead of pay as you go, which never seemed to be a desire of the Dems when they controlled congress, why not just slash spending. Lets get rid of the Dept. of Education, turn that government role back to the states where it constitutionally belongs.  Lets cut the NEA, funding for scientif studies on the migratory habits of truckers and prostitutes, clean drug needles for addicts....  Why don't we look to limit government spending by keeping money from it as oppposed to a wishlist of pork.

Sometimes we lose some perspective.

It's not about that.  It doesn't matter how many people have been shot in DC or how many GIs die in automobile accidents.

See, it's Worth It to live in DC despite the murder rate.

It's Worth It to allow GIs to drive cars in spite of the deaths.

How many Americans will die of the flu this year?  60,000?  Some level of perspective would make our losses in Iraq seem trivial by comparison... but you know it doesn't work that way when it comes to support of the war.

It's because all these points have no bearing on the issue of whether or not it's Worth It to be in Iraq.  At least half the people are now saying it's questionable at best, and it's not worth it at worst.

President Bush is working to show that it is Worth It (thus the recent set of speeches), but people aren't yet buying in.

Telling people the war is going on indefinitely might be correct, but it's just news no one wants to hear.  If the polling question were asked, "Is it worth it to stay in Iraq indefinitely?" you'd probably get a majority of "It's not worth it"s.

How many Senate seats did the Republicans gain in 2004? Who was (re)elected for President? The voters did decide who they wanted and it wasn't the Democrats (in general).

Rescind the Bush tax cuts.

Internationalize the Iraq mission and leave as soon as it can be stabilized, even if it means increasing our troop strength there temporarily.

Means-test certain entitlement programs.

cut subsidies in manufacturing and agriculture.

For some Liberals, the line that the war in Iraq is making us less safe secure is just some backup talking point used when the "no blood for oil" playset of maxims fails (supra). For others, like me, it's actually believed: Iraq, because of errors of both omission and commission the whole way through, has not made us safer. And I don't see how people who disagree with the initial premise that the Iraq War has made us safer can be characterized as "lacking resolve" or "weak-kneed." Without an acceptance of the initial premise what would we be lacking the resolve to do?

We are not, for the nonce, discussing the rationale leading us into the war - although that is a point that is continually hotly debated, and probably will be until the end of time. Fine. I'm tired of arguing that over and over, frankly, and I've just come to the point where I pretty much leave people alone about this.

However, I think the point that we can agree on is that we are there now. I specifically tried to state that the truly dangerous kind of war weariness that we are facing is not the "we should have never gone into Iraq" argument, it's the "let's pull our troops out this very minute and go home" argument.

Now what I have to ask you, because this wasn't clear in your post, is whether you think that would make us safer.

I think that the control is certainly a factor for some as well as this technocratic mentality that just looks at how much a country spends as a percentage of its GDP on health care while ignoring things like innovation and growth and that the countries which may spend a smaller percentage are able to do so because they can piggy-back off of our innovation.

Or to put it another way, when price controls kill off new drug development, where will Canadians go to get their new drugs since they really aren't making any?

The fact is that I agree that there is something wrong with the financing of our health care in that it's tied to third-party payers.  We have a lot of people who are uninsured - largely because they're young and healthy and don't think it's worthwhile to have insurance and because it's difficult for small businesses to offer insurance for their employees.  At the same time we lead in innovation and have one of the most dynamic economies in the industrialized world - something that would be threatened by increasing government control.

My preference is to look at policies that accommodate the generally free market nature of our society by (a) passing a modified version of Association Health Plans* to let any group of individuals including but not limited to small businesses band together to purchase health insurance, (b) repealing "minimum mandates" that have transformed health insurance from insurance for accidents and catastrophic illnesses to pre-paid health care coverage which is a large reason why premiums are so high, (c) giving the self-insured the same tax benefits as employers who purchase insurance for their employees so that more people pay for their own health insurance and can carry it with them from job to job, and (d) expanding Health Savings Accounts so that people with low premium, high deductible policies can pay for their deductibles with tax-free money that can be rolled over from year to year.

* I call it modified because as I study the issue more I think that opponents have a point about the need to make sure that insurance plans are properly funded although I disagree that AHP's would necessarily worsen the problem.

Deaths from accidents from 1988 through 1996, inclusive, total 6808. Deaths from all causes during that period total 12,344.

The deaths from accidents in rate per 100,000 members of the armed forces averaged 37.38 from 88-96. It has averaged 32.98 from 2002-2004, inclusive.

So actually, there are fewer deaths, in number and in rate per 100,000, today than during 1988-1996.

The actual death rate per 100,000, from all causes including combat is virutally the same as it was in 1980-1983.

So no, it would not only not be safe to say that, in fact, it would not be true.

If Republicans thought they would be rewarded by being responsible (cutting spending to offset war costs), they would have done so.  They ducked responsibility because they knew they would get thrown out of office for their efforts.  Being responsible has its price.  So does war.

unnessecary government programs and agencies is a great idea.  I also wish GWB would look more like a fiscal hawk then a spender. That being said, having debt is not a bad thing per se.  And our children should pay for some of the things that occur now.  I am paying for my forefathers and they did for theirs.  It shows that as a country we continue to exist with each other's help.  It is not a disbandment at the end of one generation and a reunification under a new generation.  The government should only spend that money in which it needs to discharge the duties it has enumerated in the constitution. All other money should be returned to its rightful owner, the person who earned it.

You may want to inform the DNC of that idea since they've been demonizing any attempt to do that to Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid*.

* While Medicaid is technically a means-tested program, there is a huge problem with middle class families hiding granny's assets in order to make her eligible for taxpayer-subsidized nursing home coverage.

I can see taking on debt to win a war but taking on debt to create entitlement programs for senior citizens (who are already the wealthiest and most subsidized age demographic group) or for corporate welfare (farm bill, energy bill) is irresponsible.

is that without them, will the price of the potato go up to $5.00 a spud or some other high number.  I don't know.  If we can get a better cheaper potato or other farm product, and still have the freshness needed with produce i say get rid of all the subsidies.

I agree with you.  Lets have a government that is lean, efficient, and takes care only which is absolutely needed.

Headline: "Republicans propose cuts, women and children hardest hit"

It's just smart politics, the only way to politically get spending growth down is to starve the beast. Otherwise, people elect Democrats and then we really have problems, because you can't name one program/bill/anything that Democrats have proposed that would have spent less.

is batting .333 -- that's good!

Rescind tax cuts => damaging the economy never struck me as a good idea in wartime or in peacetime.  Ding.

Internationalize the Iraq mission => Ding!  Been there, done that, and our frenemies don't want to help.  Why people want to keep trusting the French and the Germans and the Russians and the Chinese on this issue is... well, beyond me.  Kinda reminds me of an abused woman who can't leave the abuser.

Means-test entitlement programs ==> Now there's an idea I can get behind.  Can we start with Medicare/Medicaid, then move to Social Security like, now?  Please?

-TS

Actually, the CBO assures you.

The partial expensing provisions expired at the end of calendar year 2004, resulting in additional tax liability for 2005 and to a lesser extent 2006.

That's why corporate tax revenue is up 42% this year even though profits are only up 13% - expiring tax breaks.  Corporate revenue is projected to drop for 2006 and again in 2007.  Sorry, no free lunch.

Leon says These fears can be allayed by a constant and determined communicator.

Not for me they can't.  I'm not some child who can be convinced that everything is going to be alright just because daddy says so in a strong and convincing voice. That might work for that percentage of the population that would follow Bush over a cliff, but I suspect it is not going to to work for the rest.  

The problem isn't that the American populace is harboring unrealistic fears about the war in Iraq that simply need to be soothed or that we are squeamish wimps about the deaths of our servicemen.  That's actually quite insulting.  The problem is that the populace is harboring very real fears that Iraq has turned into a fiasco...and, that the people who made the string of bad decisions that turned Iraq into such a mess aren't competent to get us out of it.  Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, neither does throwing bodies.  Not without a plan.  And to date there has been nothing coming out of this administration worthy of being called a plan.  If we are weary of anything, we are weary of incompetence and we are unwilling to let Americans die because of incompetence.

David L. Phillips at the (supposedly nonpartisan) Council on Foreign Relations wrote an absolutely damning indictment of the way the reconstruction has been mishandled. (Yes I know he was state department and their carefully crafted plan was ignored by the Pentagon in favor of Chalabi so the state folks hate the Pentagon.  That doesn't mean Phillips' analysis wasn't true in the main.)  Close to a year ago KnightRidder did a pretty comprehensive, and damning, piece about the non-planning that outlined a whole host of plans Rumsfeld et al tubed.  Yes, I know...MSM.

You can parse those articles all you want and claim bias all you want.  You can also call it Monday morning quarterbacking - and you will. But the American people are not fools. Republicans in my red state are grumbling.  They sense that if we'd had more boots on the ground in the immediate post-invasion period we wouldn't have to have left tons of munitions unguarded.  The very same munitions being now being used against our folks in the 278th.  

And they don't need Knight Ridder to tell them that we didn't have sense to position thousands of U.S. soldiers, including military police, engineers, ordnance disposal teams and civil affairs specialists, to begin taking control in Iraq even before the war against Saddam was over.  It's obvious we didn't do that.

And even if they don't know that the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Andrew Natsios, couldn't get Pentagon approval to pre-position in Kuwait all the relief supplies he thought would be necessary; common sense tell them we weren't ready from the get go to go in and win the hearts and minds of the people and get the country on an even keel from the get go.

And no matter how much Rumsfeld says you go to war with the army you have, they sense our guys don't have what they need and that the whole thing was rushed and botched.

And, even if they don't have Thomas' gift with words, they know that although "We're hoping that the Iraqis, largely if not overwhelmingly Muslim, will graft a political system like ours onto their polity with none of the underlying institutions, cultural norms, or even ideas that led to that system in our country, present in theirs." that that's not likely to occur.

I've got a good friend that just went back after a short leave.  The scarf he brought me is still laying in its wrapper in my kitchen as I was reading this morning about how two in his unit were killed yesterday.  That's six more kids without dads in my community.  I'm past weary.  I'm mad.  I'm mad there is no end in sight.  I am mad that things have been botched from the beginning.  I'm mad that the well has been poisoned and that there is probably no way to fix it.  I am mad that those who made mistakes are still in position to make more. I am mad because the sense is that my dollars are being spent and Americans are dying, not for freedom or for democracy, but because of garden variety mismanagement.

I think the last 5 years have demonstrated conclusively that the starve the beast strategy doesn't work.  In the midst of a war, while running record deficits, with a demographic bulge approaching us, a prescription drug plan was passed which has greater unfunded liabilities that Social Security over the next 75 years.  The beast is quite healthy, thank you.

Having a war-time army that costs less to maintain than the peace-time army of the same nation 20 years previously is a good start.  But our government does business in ways that would have Bill Gates filing bankruptcy within weeks.

I posted elsewhere that we need to cut several programs, whether peacetime or wartime.  Alas, ALL Senators and Congressmen, regardless of party, seem to dislike playing with only the money they actually have rather than what they can imagine.  Even my esteemed Senators and Congressmen from Alaska are turning out to out and out thieves.  

Ah well.  Alaskans take a dim view of theft even if the rest of the country doesn't care.  We have a congressman and a senator that will never be re-elected or elected into another public office within our state.

that doesn't think the failure to cut spending was an attempt to buy votes.

Of which generation do you speak? Am I missing something in there? Because if it's X or Y or thereafter, I'd remind you to take a look at the ages of those sacrificing their lives for our cause.

Excellent post.

Ahhhh the CBO, they are good for recoding what has happened, but not so good at predicting the future. Last year they missed by about 25% on what this year's deficit was going to be. They don't have a good track record on forecasting.

means testing social security will prove it to be the welfare program everyone pretends it isn't.

I also agree that damaging the economy is never a good idea, especially if its mainly intended to make some kind of political point.

...which isn't to say I'm at all happy with the sluggishness and poor leadership displayed by Rumsfeld and Bush vis-a-vis getting us out of there ASAP, where "P" is defined as "prudent." Every extra day we spend over there is making us less safe. Though it's all in how you define "extra," I guess.

Though hokey, I'd love a weeklong "permission to speak freely" wherein soldiers and diplomats could say exactly what they felt -- no matter how politically uncomfortable -- about the war and how to fix certain problems. I think we -- and various legislators and policymakers -- would learn a lot more about the situation that way. I didn't want Bush and Rumsfeld to start this war, and now I don't trust Bush and Rumsfeld to either finish nor win this war.

Just a few ideas off of the top of my head:

Target the cuts as much as possible for people who either don't need or are perceived as not "needing" to receive "help" from a particular government program such as means-testing entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.  If Democrats like John Kerry think that people who earn $200K a year don't have a right to keep more of their own money, they cannot form an honest argument against depriving them of access to someone else's.

When cutting funding for a popular government program, block grant the money to the States the first year while eliminating it and the taxes that funded it the second.  Studies generally show that people trust their State rather than federal government with spending and this will enable us to rightfully change the debate from "cutting a government program" to "we've simply returned the money to the local level (block grants) where it can be spent more efficiently" and "by cutting federal taxes, we've kept the money at the local/personal level rather than send it Washington, have part of it eaten by beauracrcay and sending only part of it back."  When people begin to realize that "federal money" for programs is really "their money" (after the government's cut), it becomes less about "cutting" and more about "returning to its rightful owner where it can be used more wisely."

Work on getting middle class people - who are the recipients of most government transfer programs - off the dole by giving them alternatives for something better.  That means Personal Retirement Accounts for Social Security and HSA's for Medicare as neither program is sustainable in their current form.

Something like a national TABOR and a requirement for a balanced budget amendment would be a way or providing political cover for harder choices.  Ditto on a line item or itemized veto for the POTUS.

years (well about 1-1/2 years) of Democrat controlled Senate, and 2 more years with only a couple vote margin. But yes I'm not happy with the spending either. However, Democrats aren't giving me any other options (raising taxes is not an option).

One of the primary gripes that the States have about Medicaid spending is that too many middle and upper income people are able to hide their assets in order to qualify for the program when it comes to things like nursing home care.

. . . because there was no money in it for them; we wanted to control it all.

By that standard, was regime change in Iraq absolutely needed?

Cancelling tax cuts which had not even taken effect yet would have been a good way to pay for the war.

Here's the deal: we now have proof, in the form of actual tax collections, that what you call a "tax cut," and which I call a "tax rate cut," has led to unambiguously higher revenues collected by the government.

What this means is that the entire body of your rhetoric here concerning "tax cuts" is ignorant nonsense which not only has no basis in fact, but is contradicted by facts.

Because of that, I have determined that these comments by you are not useful. You are simply spraying ignorance and implied falsehood on your fellow participants.

You will now stop doing this. One way or the other.

One has to realize that the attention span of the average American is now

to be measured in minutes, if not seconds.  What ever happened to picking up

a newspaper or book or magazine and reading during the TV commercials?

I kind of disagree on one point, the comment on a war "not yet 3 years old".  Keep

in mind that the US direct military action during WWII was only about 3 1/2 years,

from Dec 41 thru mid 45. You can add a bit for some continued German resistance

after VE day, but in that context I'm not sure we should be referring to anything

involving Iraq as 'only' or 'short', even with the clear differences in battle.

the real bill that provided money for the troops in Iraq.

He made his point by voting for the bill he supported. He could have been an American and voted for the real bill. But he chose not to.

accurate as a roll of the die. They predicted a deficit this year of well over $400 billion last year. And you want to believe they know what will happen in 2007?

See my response here.

If, on the other hand, the casualty rate keeps to recent levels, we'll be hitting 2,000 American deaths around the beginning of the Christmas Season, and 2,500 troop deaths as the 2006 campaign season starts to heat up.

Okay. I doubt your judgment. And I doubt your patriotism. There. Are you happy now?

Regime change throughout the Middle East is needed. Iraq got to go first so that we have an answer to the question, "Where is the world going to get its oil if things go badly when regime change arrives in one of these places?"

Under Saddam, Iraq was not that big a factor in world supplies. But it could be. So if anything bad were to happen in, say, Saudia Arabia or Iran, Iraq could fill the gap until conditions improved. The Iraqis will think this is great; they'll get rich.

One thing at a time, OK? This is going to be a long, slow road. And at no point in the effort is a U.S. President going to say, "We're in this country because we're setting things up to go after that country." Nobody's going to say that. It's a secret. Or at least, it's not something we're going to unambiguously announce in advance.

The Wahhabis got to go. Everybody knows this. But right now, if the Saudi fields stop pumping, half the world freezes in the dark. We can't have that. Same thing with the Iranian Mullahs and their nukes. They'll get theirs. Be patient. Learn to play chess instead of checkers.

I do not want to hear slogans about free lunches. The mechanism by which lower rates can produce higher revenues is well-understood. No free lunch is involved. Either inform yourself as to how this works, so that you can cease spraying ignorance into the discussion, or just cease spraying ignorance into the discussion because your alternative is to stop spraying anything into the discussion.

"I call upon the President to do so now. Remind us now, and remind us often, why this war is worth fighting. And remind us, most importantly of all, even for those who simply will not agree that the war is worth fighting, why immediate withdrawal represents disaster, and will cost more American lives in the long run than staying the course until the conflict is done. "

I dont think any Democrat wants immediate withdrawal.  What I hear is they want to hear of a exit plan like a deadline.  Sen Feingold suggests Dec 2006.

As for me Bush Iraq Policy will have more credibility if he gets a new Defense Secretary soas to have fresh new ideas.

The mechanism by which lower rates can produce higher revenues is well-understood.

Even the White House budget office doesn't believe that.  Increased economic activity resulting from tax cuts can have a mitigating effect so that the loss of revenue isn't quite as big as the tax cut.  There is absolutely no basis to the idea that, at the current approximate level of taxation, you get more revenue overall from lower taxes.

...I don't like completely arbitrary withdrawal dates so much. I think a better and more reasonable position to take is that once we know why we're actually still there -- specifically and without high-falutin' rhetorical vaguery -- we'll know why we can leave and what (again, specifically) we have to do before that can happen. I don't feel like I've gotten any of that yet and it's frustrating.

Frankly, I think that the Iraq War turned out to be a pretty bad idea.

Problem is, we can't withdraw and we can't stay either -- not with our current strategy -- unless the American people start to exhibit stronger support for the war policy.

I understand the desire to berate fellow citizens for not agreeing with a political stance, but shouldn't the effort be, instead, to convince them of why steadfastness is now required?

What's the justification for staying the course?

It is a war being fought on the dollars of our children.  Worse yet, it is a war that we are losing.  Does anyone really believe that after we withdraw, whenever that is, that we will leave a united nation with a commitment to democracy, with little to no terrorist activity within its borders, one that will be friendly to the USA and that these ideals will still be in place 5 years after we withdraw???  And if so, how long will it take to achieve these goals?  We've been there for nearly 2.5 years and we aren't even close to any of them.

I think there should be program cuts, with the first one being $80B from the military that is going to keep our troops there.  Call them tonight and tell them to start loading the planes.  Let's use our troops for some purpose that actually defends and protects our nation.

Is that that has already been elucidated. We are there to see that they get a constitution and get their feet on the ground, militarily speaking. When we do that, we will leave.

My complaint, however, as I elucidated, was that Bush needs to make that point more often. The last time I can recall him making it was about a month after the Constitution got signed. Since then, I've heard a lot of "we can't leave" and "withdrawal would send the wrong message" - but nothing specific at all.

Tax revenues are running much higher than they were before the cuts.  The data are available lots of places -- including the OMB website.

I was born and raised in Alaska - whereabouts are you currently? Drop me some email.

the cause of the president's problem in selling his desire to keep troops in Iraq.  His problem is that the reasons he gives for our staying in Iraq make no sense.  And as each day passes, the president appears to be running a Three-card Monty game where no one can find the card containing the real reason for staying in Iraq.  His most recent reason for staying in Iraq was because US soldiers have died in Iraq.  The implication of the statement that we stay because soldiers died is that we are staying forever.  If this is what the president intends, he certainly hasn't said this yet.  If the president does not intend on staying in Iraq forever, he has not described the goals which when accomplished would allow the troops to leave Iraq.  

I disagree with you that forgetfulness of the importance of the war is part of the problem.  WMD, nuclear weapons, was my reason for reluctantly agreeing with an invasion of Iraq.  I remember two other reasons for the invasion.  You can spell out all the other reasons for our invasion if you like, but it seems that all the original reasons for the invasion have been accomplished or proved to be untrue, and therefore, of no consequence.  But your key point is "...the disastrous consequences of demonstrating to your enemy that you can be defeated....:"  This is exactly what the president is doing right now.

Each day our enemies in Iraq, either the insurgents or the terrorist that have come to Iraq, demonstrate that the president is unable to control the situation.  These enemies do not require victory in battle to actually be the winner.  They only have to demonstrate that the president does not have the power to control the situation to be the winner.  When these enemies win, they demonstrate that we can be defeated.  Not one day since May 2, 2003 when the president stood in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign has the US been in control of the situation in Iraq.  We have done many good things in Iraq during our time there.  It is not about the good things we do in Iraq.  It is that  we continue to demonstrate each day that we cannot control the situation, and thus, we allow the insurgents and terrorist to be the winner of the war for that day.  You might wonder what I mean by control of the situation.  It is little things.  One example, the road between Baghdad and the Baghdad airport remains "one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Iraq" (Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 2005).  Each day that this six mile road remains unsafe is a daily win for the enemy and a loss for us.  Since the president has not provided the goals that will allow us to measure progress toward success, the war gets scored like a game of baseball with each day being a win or a loss.  During the past year the president's win/loss record is zero for....

But worse yet, it appears that we are fighting two separate enemies in Iraq.  Zarqawi and the rest of the terrorist represent one group.  We also seem to be fighting a local Iraqi insurgency with goals separate but complementary to the goals of the terrorist.  The terrorists win and the president looses each day the fighting continues.  The local insurgents will keep fighting forever to drive the invaders out.  So the president is in a fine mess where he has yet to make any statement as to how he will become a winner in the situation.  The public is sensing that the president has gotten us into a situation where we are permanent losers.  This is not good for the president.

My recommendation for the president is similar to your recommendation; he needs to get on the road.  His message needs to describe the goals that when met, the mission in Iraq is done and the troops come home.  He may not want to do that because he does not want to bring the troops home.  If this is true, he will remain a daily loser of this war.  This will make the US public very angry.

.

...the constitution is almost done and I've heard no official squeaks about leaving from anyone. Only an Army estimate about staying several more years. And helping them get their "feet on the ground" is exactly the kind of vaguery I'm frustrated by. What does that mean? Where does it stop? Does anyone know or care? I want to hear what they need to achieve to be self-sufficient and what is being done by us to help them accomplish that. And at this point I want to hear it from the vantage point, if not the mouths, of soldiers and diplomats and not politicians.

I would gladly accept a cut in services if that meant better field supply for our troops and more stuff for veterans when they get home.  These are our people.  They are willing to give up their lives for us.  We owe them that sacrifice.

Here is historical budget data.  Note that in 2001, receipts were $1.9912 trillion.  In 2004, receipts were $1.8801 trillion.  Even doing nothing, receipts ought to increase with economic growth, like they did throughout the 1990's.

you post this crap every time there is a tax discussion, it has been shot down every time.

jjayson's was easier to find than my previous responses, so here is his from LAST time you posted this garbage

2001 was a Keynesian tax act.     By: jjayson

First, understand that the supply-side claim isn't that revenues will immediately jump to pay back every penny of a tax cut. You need to look over a little bit longer time than just a single year.

Second, Bush's 2001 tax packages was almost entirely Keynesian. The supply-side claim only deals with marginal reductions. The child tax credit, phased in cuts (that weren't active until 2003), and rebates that drove up the cost of the tax package are a mark against this Keyensian notion that putting money in people's pockets spurs the economy. The 2003 tax packages just accelerated the 2001 tax act, but still kept all the Keyensian baggage, and it is a testament to the supply-side theory that only then did things finally start to turn around.

Third, from 2003 to 2004 revenues rose, and we're back above 2002 levels.

Fourth, Clinton may have raised taxes on the top bracket, but if you step outside the political press, it wasn't considered that big of a step backwards. It didn't touch the important capital gains rate, and Clinton was reducing taxes in other areas (especially international transactions). Revenues were already climbing by the time 1993 came around. However they didn't go stratospheric until just after 1997. What happened in 1997? A capital gains tax cut.

Clinton, even for being a democrat, could be argued to be a better supply-sider than Bush, even if he didn't realize it.

for the these statements by the president.

Thank you.

is the first President in a long time to not issue a single veto in over 4 years and counting,

including the porked filled Highway Bill just signed, a bill that was higher then he wanted.

The fact is the Republican Congress has spent like drunken sailors, passed the largest entitlement bill (Medicare Prescriptions) since LBJ while simoultaneously passing the largest tax cust in history and building up an Iraq debt appropaching half a trillion dollars and counting. All while not providing adequate armor to our brave troops in Bush's war.

Leon can talk about our generation unwilling to sacrifice and HE IS RIGHT but he needs to look at the President as chief among those unwilling to sacrifice.

If the War on Terror is so critical to our future, why aren't we mobilizing like during WWII with mass war production, the draft and involuntary rationing?

No, Bush and his corporate buddies want their cake and to eat it too.

Very well said. Among other points, you might add that W, Rumsfeld and the military, are, to a great extent, political victims of their tremendous tactical successes.

I've posted elsewhere, on many sites, the comment that Iraq is simply a battle, and now think it is amounting to a skirmish, in the much larger conflict thoroughly described. Most don't consider this view, and drives the Kossites batty.

The possible ultimate success of Iraq could be shifting the fight away from the military to the diplomatic and political arenas. This is clearly what happened with Libya and Lebanon, although both are very unfinished business, and this is not likely to work in the harder cases, although containment may be a suitable end strategy.

The sad prediction remains that if we are attacked again domestically, their is little political opposition favoring increased aggressiveness. All the pressure is either on the passive side, or interestingly silent (the Dean and Hilary wings, respectively). To a great extent, we are stuck with our election cycles to remedy this, but if W succeeds in preventing another domestic attack, he will have succeeded.

Additionally, we have succeeded to such an extent that China, India and Russia have not had to commit to any substantial extent in the conflict. Energy policy will force this to change even if no further attacks occur, but India has plenty of standing reason to act and is stirring to do so.

Again, excellent summary.

It looks like jjayson is basically validating alot of what I say.  

First, understand that the supply-side claim isn't that revenues will immediately jump to pay back every penny of a tax cut. You need to look over a little bit longer time than just a single year.

So, this is saying there is a long-term effect, which means it's completely impossible to demonstrate with data.  Tax revenues increase over time due to economic growth.

Second, Bush's 2001 tax packages was almost entirely Keynesian. The supply-side claim only deals with marginal reductions.

So this means that Bush's tax cut shouldn't produce increased revenue.  No argument there.

Third, from 2003 to 2004 revenues rose, and we're back above 2002 levels.

Well, of course.  We had economic growth.  You don't need tax cuts to have economic growth (see the 1990's).

Fourth, Clinton may have raised taxes on the top bracket, but if you step outside the political press, it wasn't considered that big of a step backwards.

He instantaneously raised the uppermost tax bracket from 33% to 39.6% and this wasn't a big deal?

Revenues were already climbing by the time 1993 came around. However they didn't go stratospheric until just after 1997. What happened in 1997? A capital gains tax cut.

We had a stock market explosion which later burst.  Is that what you credit the capital gains tax cut for?

So, to sum up, you are

• admitting that most of Bush's tax cuts (the "Keynsian" part) should increase the deficit.  
  
• ignoring the influx of corporate taxes way out of proportion to profits (and the CBO explanation thereof) which comes from the end of a tax cut.  
  
• saying supply-side theory works with tax cuts, but not the reverse with tax increases (like when Clinton raised the top rate 20%).

Isn't it much less convoluted to just look at the data and notice that tax increases raise revenue and tax cuts decrease them?

It means if the taxpayers don't like it, they can vote out the people raising their taxes.

You might have noticed the Democrats being a Congressional minority since 1994.

Third, from 2003 to 2004 revenues rose, and we're back above 2002 levels.

Revenue went up by $98 billion, far less than any annual increases under Clinton in real dollars despite strong economic growth, and this is supposed to validate tax cuts increasing revenue?  If a dollar magically appears under your pillow, that doesn't mean there really is a tooth fairy.  It looks like you are trying to validate your economic beliefs.  I've got data to back up what I think - is it too much to ask that you have data which backs your argument?

That's exactly why Republicans are not increasing taxes OR cutting spending.  Good short-term politics.  Lousy long-term economics.

justification for the Iraq War, I felt Jim's analysis was very evenhanded and had more truth to it then the usual kool-aid drinking partisan snipes here and on Daily KOS

I don't necessarily endorse everything Jim said, but he can see through a lot of bullshit in Washington from BOTH parties.

The job of politicians is to gain power and keep it, period. Screw what may be best for America.

Good job Jim

According to your 'theory' the tax rate cuts in 2003 should have caused revenue to decrease in 2004, but yet, the CBO shows an increase of $100 Billion.

cbo

Year    Revenues   Outlays    Total

2002     1,853.2    2,011.0    (157.8)

2003     1,782.3    2,159.9    (377.6)

2004     1,880.1    2,292.2    (412.1)

I don't think I can have this conversation with you. We are coming at this issue with radically different definitions of fiscal responsibility.

You, evidently, believe that living within our means is the sine qua non of fiscal responsibility; deficits are necessarily bad, and if we want to play, we gotta pay. If Congress increases spending, then taxes must be increased to cover the gap; otherwise, we're being irresponsible.

I don't even reach that analysis. I believe that the American people are overtaxed, and that the American government is too big; thus, that increasing taxes at all is fiscally irresponsible inasmuch as it disincents work and removes money from the economy to various government boondoggles, and that increasing spending at all is almost always likewise, inasmuch as we may as well set hundreds of billions of greenbacks on fire for as much return value as we get for our tax dollars out of much of the government, and that big government induces higher taxes.

In short, your primary concern appears to be the financial well-being of the American government. My primary concern is the financial well-being of the American people. I therefore think we are doomed to talk past one another.

From page 130 of the

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL

DICK THORNBURGH AND LOUIS D. BOCCARDI

"However, Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG, did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots."

The notion of war weariness actually highlights the larger problem at play in our country. The country is NOT weary of war in and of itself. The country is weary of not having a clear idea of whether we are winning or losing, what is being accomplished, what remains to be accomplished, and how best to do this.

Part of this can be attributed to the unique (in American history) nature of this war. We are not toppling an enemy government, not grabbing territory, and not seeking to force a hostile army out of a given territory.

Rather, we are fighting multiple wars at the same time - (1) a war against Islamic terrorists who have poured across the borders, (2) deposed Baathists, (3) common criminals; and (4) a slow burning civil war between Sunnis & Shia. We are no longer fighting Saddam, we are no longer hunting for WMDs, and we are only kind of fighting Al Qaeda elements in the form of Zaqari.

This stew of factors leads Americans to struggle with what is actually happening. And more importantly what Americans are dying for. And therefore what is being accomplished.

Part of the challenge for defenders of this war is that they are left selling a discounted product. And that's hard to do. There is a constant complaint that not enough attention is being paid to the opening of schools, the building of power plants, the selling of goods, and the occasional vote.

The problem with this is (and this is a reality that far too many Americans can't speak honestly about and/or are honest with themselves about) Americans don't really care about average Iraqis. We just don't.

Maybe we should. Maybe we shouldn't. But we don't. Americans don't care about Iraqis any more than we care about Jordanians, or Saudis, or Syrians. In all likelihood, we couldn't tell the difference between them if we were standing in a room with them.

Maybe that's wrong. But that's the reality among the majority of Americans.

No amount of convincing, and pushing a discounted product, will change that.

What the President should do is attempt, for once, to speak to the American people, CONCEDE how hard this is going to be, determine that we are going to be there through this decade, and make clear the troops aren't coming home till that happens.

Stop pussy footing around. Be strong. State what everyone in their gut already knows - we aren't leaving Iraq for a good deal of time.

THEN, define for the American people just who exactly our armed forces are fighting over there. Here's a newsflash - Joe Average American has NO idea about the difference between foreign nationals, Baathists, Sunni radicals, Al Qaeda, or the difference between Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds.

This has still never been explained. Explain it. For once.

LASTLY, attempt, for the love of god, to set some defined metrics that measure success. Stop droning on, over and over and over, about "staying the course" and "defending Democracy" (or whatever we're calling it there these days), and "supporting our troops", and "not letting the terrorists win." Americans have been hearing this for the last 2.5 years.

Be specific. Even if you turn out to be, heaven forbid, wrong. The President needs to be a man, step up, and be specific. Show some leadership. And stop repeating himself over and over with the same vague generalities we've all heard too many times.

And FINALLY, stop making excuses for why the President and this war doesn't have full support. A sizable majority of Americans no longer support this war, do not think it has made it safer, and question the President's handling of it.

They aren't all - despite many on this site's lazy desire to charicture them as such - moonbats or lefties or radicals or pacifists. It's over half the country. And America isn't stupid.

So stop complaining, and start explaining.

controlled territory of Iraq?

IMHO, should the final version of the Iraq Constitution afford anywhere near the degree of autonomy the Kurds are seeking, a permanent US military presence in those territories would not only be welcomed, but would be actively sought by the Kurdish people and their leaders.  

"which BTW is why we're paying less overall for drugs than Canada)

"which BTW is why we're paying less overall for drugs than Canada)"

now that is a laugh, I live an hour from the border and that is simply not true....

Off to the pile with you, then. Shooting numbers into the air and calling them 'data' does not cut it. Numerous people have tried to tell you this, and you will not hear it.

You could have had all the opinions you wanted. If you want your own facts, do it somewhere else.

On the one hand, you say things well within bounds, that the dKursers probably would think would get you banned, like this:

And Remember President Bush is the first President in a long time to not issue a single veto in over 4 years and counting,

including the porked filled Highway Bill just signed, a bill that was higher then he wanted.

The fact is the Republican Congress has spent like drunken sailors, passed the largest entitlement bill (Medicare Prescriptions) since LBJ while simoultaneously passing the largest tax cust in history and building up an Iraq debt appropaching half a trillion dollars and counting.

Then we follow it with garbage like this:

All while not providing adequate armor to our brave troops in Bush's war.

"Bush's war" is an interesting idea. Korea, then, was Truman's war? Vietnam Johnson's? This is idiocy and, curiously, probably why you folks get all defensive about your patriotism, even though we say nothing about it.

Then we get stuff like this:

Leon can talk about our generation unwilling to sacrifice and HE IS RIGHT but he needs to look at the President as chief among those unwilling to sacrifice.

Now, this is technically in error -- Bush, for example, does not draft or pass budget bills, or indeed any bills, although he could use a (probably meaningless) veto -- but, while stupid, it's within the bounds of discourse here.

But then we get this:

No, Bush and his corporate buddies want their cake and to eat it too.

Now, you see, this is just dumb Leftie agitprop -- by which I mean agitprop that is dumb, for dumb Lefties. It suggests that you don't pay attention to where you post, what the mission statement of this site is, or even have an understanding of what it means to be a guest in someone else's home.

I'm probably going to have to ban you, but for now, consider this your One Bite.

What is your point with that post?

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but an increasing number of Americans are misinformed (democrat/media) and uneducated (government schools).  This is taking place nationally at an alarming rate.  Which leads to my quibble with this statement.  

"They aren't all - despite many on this site's lazy desire to charicture them as such - moonbats or lefties or radicals or pacifists. It's over half the country. And America isn't stupid.

So stop complaining, and start explaining."

I do not contend that half of the American people are stupid. However, approximatley one-third of the current school age population will not graduate from high school.

I have commented on this to a greater extent here:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/7/3/14510/50710/200#200

The Manhattan Institute study and report can be found here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

The democrat/media is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the left and the Democrat Party and it has a decidedly anti-Bush agenda.  Documentation for this can be found here:

http://www.mrc.org

This combination, although seemingly unrelated, has a direct corollary, IMHO, to the current poll numbers regarding Iraq.

"We don't like the war, so we won't help figure out how to pay for it."

I'm not sure who you are quoting there, but when you say:

List all of the federal programs you are willing to cut or cancel to pay for the war

If you like the war, shouldn't you be one of the first to offer ideas on how to pay for it instead of asking those who don't support it to work out how to pay for it?

If I managed to get taxpayers to pay for something you didn't like, added the massive tab to the deficit and then replied to your complaints about paying for it with "If you don't like it, List all of the federal programs you are willing to cut or cancel to pay for it" I would imagine that you would think that was a very odd response. At least.

Can you pass on a link to help illustrate how much  less the U.S. pays overall for drugs than Canada?

Thanks in advance.

That they have decided to take sides, and they are being overt about it.

We need to make some noise over this.  Winning the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan will not matter if we lose the war in our newsrooms.

You should know that a "cheaper spud" can be obtained from any number of countries.

As far as freshness is concerned, I don't think the subsidies deal with that issue.

Well said Jim

 I don't hold all your views but it is something to think about. Unfortunately when I saw the looting in Baghdad I had the feeling Bin Laden had won the first round.

I also have a nagging feeling we have destabilized the region just as he wished. I did not support this go it alone strategy but we certainly can not just cut and run. Both parties are the product of attack politics leaving those that are most capable of governing to not even consider it.

What we need is a leader that will step up and focus the public and our allies and stop all the BS.

I think this has been the best discussion I have seen on restate. Even if it reinforces my paranoia I have about this whole mess, we find ourselves in.

I couldn't have said it any better.

-TS

And in this particular situation of Iraq-Iran-Saudi Arabia-Syria-Egypt-UAE-Yemen-etc., it might pay for us to learn to play GO....

-TS

What, if i might take this threat off-topic for a moment, motivates the democratic obsession with single-payer health care?

I think it's motivated by the idea that poor people shouldn't have to go without it, and perhaps (a small stretch here) that's coupled with the idea that people's income shouldn't be the determinant of their quality of care.

That's Unfortunate.

For awhile I was thinking RedState was a more mature site able to take a real give and take dialog.

Apparently, like many political sites, you'd rather be exposed to your own Kool-Aid. That's fine. Enjoy it.

You or any conservative is welcomed at my blog

Daily Speech

and I can assure you I will not ban you.

I am not afraid to debate anyone. Too bad you guys are.

Oh well...I guess we'll debate you in the voting booths.

Good luck (NOT)

Hear me out... If the American people were to actually have to pay for spending when the money is spent, they might not want to actually spend the money.  When the spending is de-linked from the taxing, there is no constraint.  Then we all end up paying the price, since you can't default on the debt.  Interest on the debt is currently a $160 billion chain around the taxpayers' necks, and too much deficit spending puts upward pressure on interest rates.  Only looking at taxes is just a short-term solution, because taxes will have to be raised again if we run deficits.

I agree with pay-as-you-go financing.  However, the reason the Balanced Budget Amendment (a Republican initiative) never got traction is because there are certain times when a deficit is necessary.  Two that come to mind: recession, war.  That's why in 2001-2004, I didn't mind a deficit that was relatively small (under 3% of GDP).  It pushed over that line at some points.  And now that the economy is doing well, it should be shrinking (and it is).  With an ongoing war, I don't mind spreading out the cost of that war over a decade by running a deficit of 1% of GDP (which is smaller than the deficit we are running).

However, the main problem I have is that most Dems want to fix the deficit (a problem) with higher taxes (a different problem).  People like me who want to see government cut spending are left without a choice to fit our preference.

My theory is simple: if you cut taxes, revenue decreases; if you increase taxes, revenue increases.  This theory is supported by mainstream economic thought and the people who work up the budgets at CBO and the White House.  Tax revenue should also increase with economic growth; this is something upon which we should both agree.  Thus, a tax cut, if small enough, does not necessarily lead to the treasury taking in less money than the year before under my theory - it just means it would take in less than if we did nothing.  These theories are supported by the data I linked to.

Here is revenue for each year, and the gain over the previous year (billions).

1993     1,154.4  +63

1994     1,258.6 +104

1995     1,351.8  +93

1996     1,453.1 +101

1997     1,579.3 +126

1998     1,721.8 +143

1999     1,827.5 +106

2000     2,025.2 +198

2001     1,991.2  -34

2002     1,853.2 -138

2003     1,782.3  -81

2004     1,880.1  +98

We had a tax increase in 1993 and tax cut in (as I understand) 1997, 2001, and 2003.  During this time, we had robust economic growth through the year 2000 (with a stock market bubble in the last few years), a mild recession in 2001, weak growth in 2002, improving growth in 2003, and robust growth in 2004.

The basic theory that tax increases increase revenue (and the converse) is supported by the data.  Revenue increased after the 1993 tax cut and decreased after the 2001 tax cut.  Note that the recession alone does not explain the decrease in revenues, since the decrease continued for 2002 and for 2003, when the economy was growing.  The generally applied opposite theory, which you appeared to have been favoring, does not seem to be supported by the data.  A delayed impact modification of that theory is also not supported by the data, as if that happened, we would have seen a delayed decline in revenues (or at least a decline in the rate of increase) resulting from the 1993 tax increase.

The modified theory touched on by the excerpt from jjayson implies that certain tax cuts do increase revenue.  If this is specifically capital gains, please state your theory as such and we can go from there.

I am skeptical of claims that the revenue increase in 2004 over 2003 results from tax cuts.  The reason is pretty simple.  The baseline of the 1990's shows $100 billion increase in revenue each year resulting from economic growth alone without messing with the tax code at all.  Thus, $100 billion in increased revenues now looks small since the overall budget and GDP are now much greater than 10 years ago.  I don't see why this should be convincing evidence, or even evidence at all, that a tax cut increased revenue.

I'm sorry if I sounded shrill before - I should have taken the time to fully lay out my arguments so that the assumptions on my end of the argument were clear.  I hope you will explain what it is in the data which supports your argument.

If I am to be banned for what is truly a geeky argument, that's certainly going out with a whimper but so be it.  I wrote a more thorough outline of my reasoning here including an apology for not stating my case clearly earlier and then getting frustrated when people didn't follow my line of thought.  Good bye.

That is a disappointing and delusional conclusion to draw based on a relatively unrrelated set of links and data.

You do neither yourself nor your party (presumably GOP) any favors by arguing that when a majority of Americans don't agree with your or the President's position, it is because they are uneducated or misinformed or dumb or moonbats or radicals or whatever nom du jour you choose to use.

A nearly identical position was taken by a significant number of Democrats after GW won in 2004. "My god," they cried, "Half this country is just stupid, uneducated, and misinformed. And that's how Bush managed to win."

That was an absurd argument then, and your argument is absurd now.

Moreover, by your logic, if the country is too misinformed and uneducated to support the Iraq War now, then were they not equally misinformed and uneducated when they supported the invasion overwhelmingly two and a half years ago?

Were they uneducated then? Or are they uneducated now? Were they led astray by the liberal MSM when they supported the war then? Or are they being blinded by the evil liberal MSM now?

Instead of offering a logically lazy rationalization for why a significant majority of this country has turned against the position you hold (and GW has staked his legacy upon), perhaps your time would be better spent trying to figure out how GW and the GOP apparatus could better articulate, sell, and convince this country that we are on the right path in Iraq.

Make your case. Not excuses.

Cut spending first. Bring the federal budget into balance by slashing entitlements and maybe closing a Cabinet-level department or two, and you and yours will have earned some credibility with me such that we can begin discussing implementation of PAYG or something like it.

Right now? I simply do not trust you. However spendthrift the Republicans have been, I have every reason to believe that the Democrats would be even worse, and would use PAYG not as a good-faith constraint on spending but rather as a mechanism to dodge responsibility for raising taxes (i.e., "The statute made us do it!").

is pretty obvious.

Anyone who is trying to bootstrap the deaths of young men into an electoral advantage is a pretty detestable human being, if that term even applies.

however do some pretty stringent background checking to ferret out cases of asset hiding. You can't simply hand over your bank account to your kids and expect the state not to notice. Here in Florida, for example, a friend's grandfather went on Medicaid for nursing home payments. He was required to sell his house and the proceeds would be used to defray his care before medicaid would kick in. My friend wanted to buy his grandfather's house himself, but was not allowed to under the theory that the sale price would be less than it might be if sold to a stranger.

Re: ...repealing "minimum mandates" that have transformed health insurance from insurance for accidents and catastrophic illnesses to pre-paid health care coverage which is a large reason why premiums are so high

This is often heard, but in fact it's incorrect.. Catastrophic coverage is by far the largest component of most health care premiums. The little stuff, like office visits and the like is indeed "little stuff" Healthcare premiums have risen so much in the last generation or so precisely because we now have all kinds of high tech but mega-expensive treatments available (for cancer, heart disease, severe trauma, etc.) that were not available in the past. I work in the industry and would be happy to break down a sample real-world plan if any anyone does not believe me about this.

To be sure there may be a reason to get rid of the mandates, but don't expect any significant savinsg to result is what I am saying.

By the way, I agree with your other proposals.

"Starving the beast" is a very dangerous ploy. Cavalier recklessness with a nation's fiscal integrity can lead to some grim results, as Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II all learned their regret.

My point in putting up those estimates was that the national outlook is only going to get worse as these unfortunate milestones are reached, electoral advantage or no.

Then why did you link them to elections?

all we can really do (absent some massive health care overhaul) is create a sliding scale of premiums charged to the beneficiary, based on income. The problem is that private insurance will strongly resist picking up the slack for the elderly, whose health care expenses tend to be quite high, and moreover we would create an even stronger incentive for businesses to lay off elderly workers rather than foot skyrocketing healthcare premiums for them if they were no longer eligible for Medicare.

Medicare cannot be reformed in any major way without comprehensive healthcare reform.

Re: However, the reason the Balanced Budget Amendment (a Republican initiative) never got traction is because there are certain times when a deficit is necessary.

Another good reason is that such an amendment invites the Supreme Court into the budgeting process-- unless it was crafted in such a way that the court would be explicitly forbidden to intervene, and yet then how would it be enforced? Anyone want a situation where SCOTUS orders a tax increase because Congress can't agree on a budget? Something like this has happened at the state level.

full coverage premiums.

When my husband got out of the Navy, and before he was covered through his new job (he had to work their 6 months to qualify) we purchased a catastrophic coverage plan (the plan did not cover office visits, labwork, or pregnancy/maternity care) for our family.  I think it was about $200 a month give or take about $50.  When we got coverage through his employer we paid $75 a week for the PPO plan, and that included his employer paying a large percentage of the premium.

Right now we pay $500 a month, and his employer pays 50% of the premium total for our HMO.

So, in our experience a catastrophic plan is far cheaper than full service insurance plans.

we purchased the catastrophic plan back in 1996, so the comparison to our current premiums may not be fair, given that insurance costs have risen quite a bit in almost 10 years, and we haven't shopped for catastrophic plans since, so they may have gone up significantly, but I can't imagine them going up to the point that they are as expensive as full service coverage.

The comparison to his first employer indicates that a catastrophic plan is about 1/4 to 1/2 what a full service plan would be, and I suspect that ratio hasn't changed much in 10 years.

here let's remember that there is nothing unqiue about this situation. With the singular exception of WWII every major war this country has fought has stirred up significant public resistance.

The Revolution was opposed by about a third of the populace (many of whom skedaddled to Canada afterwards). The War of 1812 nearly provoked secession by New England (rather "blue" even in those days I guess). The Mexican War was denounced by Congressman Abraham Lincoln, among others. The Civil War was hated by sizable factions both North and South, with riots and guerilla warfare as the result. The Spanish American War was opposed by anti-imperialists and did not not become a major contorversy only because of its brevity. In WWI Wilson quashed dissent by jailing dissenters. Korea was so hated by 1952 that Eisenhower won on a platform of bringing it to an end. And Vietnam--no need to go there at all!

The point of electing a President is not to have him follow the polls on every whim of the day.  Which polls should he believe?  Which questions should we ask?  Do you agree with the results of every poll out there?  Gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts, medical savings accounts?  All these decisions should just be decided on the poll?  Why have elected leaders at all? Let's just abdicate all responsibility and govern by referendum like the bana republic of California.

Did FDR poll after each battle?  Was it 'worth it' to be in northern Africa?  Was it 'worth it' to storm the coast of Normandy?  At the time, I wonder what polls would have said.

But who cares?  Presidents lead.  They make hard decisions for the security of the nation and go forward with the decision.  If they sit and second guess every decision, we end up not doing anything and becoming less secure.

Does Bush need to do a better job explaining what's going on?  Sure.  It would be positive to engage his critics more regularly and more forcefully.  But there is also the reality that this President is not a media president, he doesn't thrive on being on TV, talking with reporters, or making a scene.  It's a hard transition from the Reagan era or the (blech) Clinton era and their omnipresence on TV, but it is what it is.

So perspective is very important.  The nature of this war has changed dramatically, and so our expectations must change as well.  We are not fighting a regularized army with identified troops, so the nature of our engagement, the length of it,  and how we must deal with it as a nation.

The best similarity is the U.S. occupation of the Philippines from 1898 through WWII.  It was a long, hard slog, lots of terrorist actions, military occupation, troop deaths, political discord at home.  The hope is that we've learned lessons from the past and do a better job than we did in the Philippines.  But time will tell.

As for the 'indefinite' nature of the presence of troops in Iraq.  We're still in Germany and Japan after WWII.  We're still in Korea after that war.  So it's not much of a surprise that we'll be in Iraq for a while.  The hope is that as Iraq becomes more stable, as the Iraqis build up their own government and deal with the insurgents, it will become a better, safer country and our troops will be safe as well.

because there is no other way to keep it solvent without raising medicare taxes on those who work significantly.

I think half the problem with medicare is that it long ago created a dissincentive for private insurance companies to cover the elderly.

My guess is that rather than totally eliminating the coverage they will turn it into a pay down method, much like the elderly have for medicaid, where their income info is put into a formula, and a number is spit out at the end, and the coverage doesn't kick in, until the person has spent that much in medicare over the course of a month.  Basically it will turn into a monthly deductible.

I am not sure that would be a bad or evil idea, and it may be a way to keep the program solvent without tossing the wealthier, but not wealthy enough elderly into the ranks of the uninsured, because they don't qualify and can't find private coverage.

All it takes is a little effort to plan ahead.  Grandma 'sells' her house to her kids, say 5 years before she may need to go into a nursing home.  She lives in the house rent free and the kids can 'gift' her up to $10,000 each year to pay for whatever expenses she has.

Happens all the time, and it is perfectly legal.  Quite a freaking scandal.

But it's hard to figure out how to stop it.

But the budget is just a blueprint that has little force.  Congress can just vote to 'waive' the budget and they do so all the time, Judd Gregg's admirable efforts notwithstanding.

The real problem is the appropriations bills that add pork spending like its going out of style, keep funding programs that have no value or need, and dump money into programs that aren't necessary or national in need.

I believe the vast majority of vegetable farmers have no subsidies or price controls, hence your experience with low prices in the veg isle.

The subsidies and price protections are in row crops (CRP Program, ethanol, etc.), sugar (protectionism), and milk (more expensive than pop, though the gov't buys it and dumps is down the drain -- literally).

I HATE gov't interference in agriculture.  It is an absolutely surefire, never fail way to drive up prices and waste.

Iraq got to go first so that we have an answer to the question, "Where is the world going to get its oil if things go badly when regime change arrives in one of these places?"

Interestingly, this was not one of the arguments for invading Iraq presented by the President and his staff in the runup to the war.

Funny, that.

And, as an aside, if you all are going to bump CA Pol Junkie for what is essentially an argument about the interpretation of some OMB numbers, you might as well toss us all out.  Unless I'm missing something, there was nothing offensive or dishonest in his line of argument.

Cheers -

So cliched. So emotive.

Maybe none of that really matters because there exist viable market-based alternatives to sinlge-payer that would actually function at a much higher level of service, care and innovation.  But if you love the idea of government managing scarcity by rationing care in accordance with God-only-knows-what criteria, have fun in fairyland.

I didn't even say that I was in favor of single-payer health care.

You asked "why the obsession?" and I gave you what I believe the motivation is.

We need a hacker (Clayton?) to substitute you for the democratic response to the next Presidential address.

is trite, cliched and emotive.  It is so far removed from the reality of how the world works that it causes extreme stupefaction when one tries to understand how anyone could want single-payer health care given its manifest failure everywhere it exists.  

Unless, of course, health isn't the real motivation anyway.

Gosh, I bet we could come up with something better than your checking account balance. But maybe that's just me.

If Grandma is gifted with certain psychic abilities, such as foreknowledge of the future. And if that's the case by all means let's reward her with a lucrative new career as our very own Delphic Oracle, sonething we sorely lack in this country.

in enormous delays for routine care?

this from an inside view. And perhaps our definitions of catastrophic are not quite the same.  You are probably talking about a major med policy which kicks in after a certain large deductible is reached. I am thinking in terms of reinsurance, which is what insurance companies pay other insurers to protect them against large scale losses from a single suscriber. The reinsurance cost is not always delimited as such on the bill that goes out to the customer.

He was kinda trite and cliched too sometimes...

Don't (deliberately?) confuse motivation with instantiation.

There's certainly no way we could improve on anything that's been tried to date. Good point.

Re: I think half the problem with medicare is that it long ago created a dissincentive for private insurance companies to cover the elderly.

But that disincentive already existed. High health care costs are a normal and natural part of getting old, and insurers will understandably seek to avoid such suscribers, either by rejecting them outright or by charging premiums well beyond the means of even a middle class person to pay. That's why Medicare was created. And the situation has gotten worse, due to the introduction of so many expensive new treatments and drugs. Insurers would even less happy about insuring the elderly today than they were when our grandparents were young.

I'm only stating the obvious, which is that the motivation is incapable of instantiation in the real world.  

If we're going to go down the road of WWJD, I'm quite sure he would tell us all to give of our own resources willingly and cheerfully; nothing there about an intermediary called "the state".

some of the voluminous literature on the structural problems inherent in jsut the sort of centralization of planning and resources that would be required to administer a single-payer health care system.  You could start with The Road to Serfdom.

And that motivation is trite, cliched and emotive.

Where I come from, we call it decency.  Sorry about your world.

It is so far removed from the reality of how the world works that it causes extreme stupefaction

Well, that's a damned shame, isn't it?

Unless, of course, health isn't the real motivation anyway

I've read more than few of Liz's posts.  As far as I can tell, she always offers reasonable statements in good faith.  In this particular case, she was giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.  I'd say her comments deserve to be taken at face value.

Unless, of course, a desire to obtain a straightforward answer wasn't the real motivation, anyway.

Cheers -

my personal inclination is for a system that is market-oriented with respect to routine and elective care for adults, and guarantees catastrophic coverage for all.

Thanks for the tip, though, I'll check it out.

you don't seriously believe that our current health care system is ideal, do you? Why are you quibbling with my contention that we can do better?

that you were indicating a belief that the single-payer systems could be improved to the point of viability.  You shifted gears and I didn't.  Sorry.

No, I don't believe that our current system is ideal.

Honestly, I got a little upset, and it probably impacted the clarity of my posts. Cheers.

I'd hate to think that it's dwindling readership will take another, substantive hit.

An interesting and thoughtful post, with more than a few very good points.

Questions and comments:

Saddam was given several opportunities to simply "get with the program" ala Musharref

I think I missed that part.  What are you referring to?

Dems and the Media ignore that Osama is our main enemy in Iraq

I think you mistate their position.  The folks you refer to generally disagree, rather than ignore, that Osama is out main enemy in Iraq.

Dems are not even willing to FIGHT Osama bin Laden

Sorry, manifestly false.  I won't call it a lie because you probably think it's true, but this statement has no relationship to any reality I'm aware of.

Thanks -

I'm not inclined to think single-payer is the answer but where has it been tried and "failed?"

Please define "failure" of a health care system for this purpose.  IMHO this is the number two issue facing the country and it really concerns me.

Thanks

The most recent data from the CDC website:

Firearm deaths, US: 10.5 per 100,000

Firearm deaths, DC: 34.2 per 100,000

Vehicle deaths, US: 15.7 per 100,000

Vehicle deaths, WY: 34.2 per 100,000 (highest)

Because the GOP is going to have a bigger problem on its hands unless it can figure out how to get out in front on this issue.  

I don't see any change anytime soon in the situation in Iraq, and I don't see why the American public should put on blinders and pretend that everything is ok just because the Bush Administration says it is.  It's not and it is going to get worse before it gets better.

of being in the US army is significantly higher than living in DC or driving in Wyoming, but only slightly more risky than driving from DC to Wyoming with a firearm.

What would be more useful to consider is the mortality rate for soldiers serving in Iraq, as this is obviously much higher than the global average of 70/100,000 which includes army personnel that never leave the US, serve in countries with no conflict or work in jobs that do not expose them to combat. ANyone have the numbers?

that "single-payor" has failed anywhere. People in Canada, for example, still get healthcare and by and large most of them are content with it. On the other hand it is absolutely true that these types of govermment-run insurance programs lead to serious problems. We see some of them right here with Medicare and Medicaid. There's no allowance for research and innovation, for example. And, non-urgent procedures sometimes require long waits. Overall, there seems to be deficiencies in the quality of care, though not enough to be reflected in actual healthcare outcomes.

The myth of widespread armor inadequacy lives on, propagated by your repetition of antiwar talking points and dishonest journalism.  Here is the latest example of how the press turns a positive into a negative, so as not to disturb a Known Fact:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly082505.php3

now I'm back to my original post. I thought I might be wrong but I obviously made a mistake.

I'm not suggesting that Grandma needs to be psychic, just a realist.

Say Grandma is 80, and she's in moderate health, but no one in her family has ever lived past 82.  

Knowing and loving her kids or grandkids as she does, and wanting them to get her assets and not the government, she sells the house to her kids with the verbal agreement that they will let her stay in the house until she a) dies or b) needs a nursing home.  The kids agree because they a) love grandma b) don't want to have to care for her as she ages and c) see nothing wrong with bilking the government because that's what its there for.

So a little transaction is made at the title office and all is perfectly legit.

It's horrific, it's dishonest, but it's legal.  At least as the law now stands.

I'm not advocating that it happen, but it does.

It's kind of the same logic behind the estate tax.  The elimination of the estate tax doesn't help the uber-wealthy, the super-wealthy, or the kinda wealthy.  The elimination helps the 'rich' folks who aren't wealthy enough to set up trusts and other dodges to avoid paying it.  The elimination helps those who can't afford to tie up all of their assets in some bizarre formulation of non-individualized property holding.  Bill Gates isn't going to let 55% of his estate go to the government.  He'll have an army of lawyers and accountants set up trusts and charitable organizations, and whatever else.  But the small-businessman with a company worth (on paper) $5 million won't have the capacity to easily hide it or manuever it into a legally independent body.

There's ways to avoid any tax, which are technically legal.  Immoral maybe, but that's because lawyers are involved.

Good point.  

We are asked to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.

I missed the biblical passage for universal health care as provided by Caesar.  I don't have the new version, apparently.

no Biblical passage in which Caesar is enjoined to pass laws against abortion, but that does not mean we should not do so in the interest of justice and morality.

My point was that Bush is going to have a tougher and tougher time stopping the deterioration of American support for the war unless he can get out in front of the issue and justify why it's worth it to continue fighting.  

I didn't suggest that people running for office use the "infinitesimally small" number of troop deaths in the Iraq War as a platform issue, I just pointed out that it was going to continue going up and that it was probably going to hit some news-worthy milestones in 2006.  If that offends you, well, then, I'm sorry.  Like it or not, it's a part of the cost of the Iraq War.

for the post. I think we have been talking past each other a bit here. My whole point is that at different times, economic conditions are different, but in general tax rate cuts lead to higher GPD growth, which lead taxable events, which lead to greater revenue. My claim is that 1993 is a statistical anomaly, the beginning of the tech boom overcoming the tax policy. GDP growth was higher 1997-2000 than 1993-1997 as the tax increase slowing economic activity in 1993 and increasing economic activity in 1997. With the way our tax system is set up the phenomenon of 'bracket creep' happens every year. People make more money than the previous year, leading them to have more and more income subject to higher tax brackets - think about all the stories you might have heard about the AMT this last year, a lot of middle income families were hit with the AMT which was supposed to only hit the `rich' when it was enacted. Bracket creep acts like a tax increase every year, so tax rate cuts are needed every few years (i.e. adjusting the gross income subject to the brackets). Anyways,  here are 2 `quick' articles that can say it better than I could

From Cato in 1997 (emphasis mine)

The turning point in tax policy was not 1993. Tax rates began to rise in 1990, during the Bush administration. The top income tax rate on earned income rose from 28% to 31% after the 1990 budget deal and then to 42% in 1993 as part of President Clinton's first budget. So we have now had a seven-year experiment with higher income tax rates on the wealthy. From 1990 through the most recent estimates for 1997, total federal tax collections have risen from $1.03 trillion to $1.55 trillion annually. After inflation, this has been a 21.6% rise in federal receipts over seven years.

How does this stack up against the growth of tax payments during the Reagan years, when tax rates fell sharply? From 1982 (the first year of the Reagan tax cut) to 1989, the top tax rate was chopped from 70% to 28%. Despite the deep recession of the early 1980s, federal receipts grew from $618 billion in 1982 to $991 billion in 1989. After inflation, this was a 24.1% increase in tax collections.

And Heritage

The Tax Cuts of the 1920s.

Income tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, with the top rate falling from 73 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 6 percent between 1921 and 1929. Personal income tax revenues increased substantially, rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928. This 61 percent increase in revenue occurred at a time of no inflation. The percentage of the tax burden borne by the rich jumped dramatically, climbing from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy Tax Cuts.

Lower taxes on savings and investment were approved in 1962, followed by across-the-board tax rate reductions in 1964. Economic growth improved, with GDP increasing at an average annual rate of 5 percent between 1961 and 1968. The Kennedy tax cuts triggered record expansion, and revenues grew by 62 percent over the seven-year period.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for a supply-side strategy is the way different income groups responded to lower tax rates. Wealthy taxpayers wound up paying significantly more tax revenues after their tax rates were reduced.

The 1978 Capital Gains Tax Cut.

The more control a taxpayer has over a taxable activity, the more pronounced the supply-side effect. Capital gains taxes are the best example of this phenomenon, because a taxpayer can avoid the tax by not selling assets. In 1968, legislation was approved that raised the capital gains tax from 25 percent to 49 percent. (Effective tax rates almost always were higher--sometimes over 100 percent--since the government did not, and still does not, allow taxpayers to adjust asset prices for inflation.) Not surprisingly, capital gains revenues were sluggish throughout the 1970s. In 1978, however, the rate was reduced to 28 percent. The very next year, revenues jumped 45 percent. Capital gains tax revenues continued to rise, climbing even more when the Reagan tax cuts lowered the rate even further, down to 20 percent in 1981.

The Reagan Tax Cuts.

Campaigning on across-the-board tax cuts, Ronald Reagan took office at a time when the economy was in horrible shape. The economy was in the middle of a severe double-dip recession. Inflation was running at double-digit rates, unemployment was rising, and interest rates had climbed to more than 20 percent. Critics claimed the tax cuts would be inflationary and would do nothing to boost growth, but just the opposite occurred. Americans did not receive a net tax cut until sometime between July 1982 and January 1983 because previously legislated payroll tax increases and bracket creep offset the portions of the tax cut that took effect in 1981 and 1982. However, once the tax cuts did take effect, they initiated the longest peacetime economic expansion up to that point in the nation's history.

The most comprehensive analysis of the revenue effect of the Reagan tax cuts shows two things: The lower tax rates on the rich more than paid for themselves, and there were substantial feedback effects from lower tax rates on other income classes as well. Defenders of high tax rates condemn the Reagan program, noting that tax revenues in the early 1980s were well below the Administration's original projections, but this reasoning is seriously flawed. First, it blames the tax cuts for the second half of the double-dip recession of 1980-1982, a drop in the economy that actually began before the tax cut was initiated. Second, it fails to recognize the irony in the fact that two-thirds of the revenue shortfall occurred because inflation was reduced much faster than was originally thought. Significantly, the forecast of the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office closely matched the Administration's.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The Tax Reform Act lowered tax rates on individual income and increased the tax burden on corporate income. According to the static estimates, the shift in taxes should have amounted to more than $100 billion in revenues over the five-year period. Actual tax collections, however, showed a very clear and pronounced supply-side effect. As taxpayers responded to lower rates, individual income tax revenues grew faster than expected--nearly 6 percent above projections. The higher tax burden on corporate income, meanwhile, had the opposite effect; corporate income tax receipts were very sluggish, falling nearly 25 percent below the static estimates.

The divergent responses of personal and corporate income tax collections are critical. Proponents of static forecasting often argue that the dynamic correlations between tax rates and the state of the economy are merely coincidental. For example, they deny that the booming economy and rapid revenue growth of the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s had anything to do with lower tax rates. Conversely, they hold that the economy's poor performance during the 1930s, 1970s, and early 1990s is simply a matter of bad fortune, completely unrelated to higher tax rates. These arguments fall apart when analyzing the Tax Reform Act, since it is inconsistent to blame sluggish corporate tax collections on a weak economy while at the same time claiming that increased personal tax collections are the result of a strong economy.

The 1986 Capital Gains Tax Rate Increase.

When, as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, policymakers increased the capital gains tax from 20 percent to 28 percent, two noteworthy things happened: Capital gains realizations (asset sales) and revenues soared before the tax rate increase took effect and then collapsed by more than 50 percent when the higher rate took effect. Nevertheless, when the Congressional Budget Office put together its revenue baseline in 1990, it assumed that capital gains realizations would grow at the same rate they did during the early 1980s when the tax rate was low.

This assumption proved to be a huge error. In fact, the high capital gains tax discouraged asset sales, and realizations were stagnant--usually less than half of CBO's projections. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Taxation used this inflated baseline in 1990 to put together static revenue estimates suggesting that a reduction in the rate would lose money and primarily benefit the wealthy. To the contrary, the 1986 increase in the capital gains tax rate actually hurt middle-income taxpayers more than the rich, since the tax rate on their gains rose from 14 percent to 28 percent.

The Luxury Tax.

The 1990 budget agreement included provisions imposing excise taxes on products thought to be purchased by the "rich," including luxury boats and private airplanes. These taxes backfired so badly that Congress repealed them. Actual collections from the boat tax reached only $32.5 million, according to the Treasury Department--far below the $53 million originally forecast. The Joint Committee on Taxation, meanwhile, admitted that the airplane tax collected just 10 percent of the static estimate.

Defenders of the tax have argued that the revenue shortfall was coincidental, but the effects of the luxury tax were in fact even worse than these numbers indicate. When boat builders lost their jobs and boatyards shut down, the federal government lost income and payroll taxes and also had to pay out unemployment benefits. The static estimates recognized that some people could lose their jobs as a result of the tax but assumed that those workers would immediately get jobs paying the same wage someplace else. Life in the real world, unfortunately, does not operate in accord with the assumptions of static blackboard models.

The 1990 Bush Tax Rate Increase.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush reneged on his no-new-taxes promise and signed into law a major tax increase, including an increase in the top rate from 28 percent to 31 percent. Rather than bringing in new revenues, however, the government began to collect less revenue than was projected before tax rates were increased. In 1991 alone, revenues fell by more than $6 for every $1 the tax increase was supposed to generate.

Defenders of static scoring admit this happened but blame the stagnant economy for the drop in revenues. Since the tax increase certainly played a significant role in the economic slump, however, this excuse rings hollow. Even if one accepts the unlikely assumption that the tax increase had nothing to do with the recession, other compelling numbers demonstrate the dynamic effect. In 1991, income tax receipts from those making more than $200,000 fell by more than 6 percent, but tax collections from those making less than that rose by 1 percent. In other words, the government wound up collecting less in revenue from the taxpayers who were slapped with higher tax rates and more from those whose tax rates did not go up.

The 1993 Clinton Tax Rate Increase.

Without a vote to spare in either the House or the Senate, during his first year in office, President Clinton imposed the largest tax increase in history. His increase in the top tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent was the biggest jump since Herbert Hoover boosted the rate from 25 percent to 63 percent in 1930. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the tax rate increase raised only one-third of the anticipated revenue.

Some have argued that the Clinton tax increase must have succeeded since the budget shifted from deficit to surplus in the late 1990s, but the Clinton Administration's own budget figures dispel this myth. In January 1995, almost 18 months after the tax increase was enacted, President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget projected that future budget deficits would remain above $200 billion--and climb in all subsequent years. Needless to say, if the Clinton Administration admitted in 1995 that the tax increase would not lead to a balanced budget, it would be groundless to make that claim today.

What really happened? As always, it is difficult to provide a precise answer, but the fiscal restraint imposed by the newly elected Republican Congress, combined with pro-growth capital gains tax cuts and private-sector initiative, clearly were the main factors in balancing the budget. In other words, the budget was balanced because government policy shifted away from President Clinton's original approach.

The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction.

The 1997 capital gains tax cut is the most recent example of the negative impact of static scoring. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that reducing the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent would "cost" the government $21 billion over the next 10 years. The JCT did estimate that revenues would increase in the first two years because the lower rate would encourage more asset sales, but there was no attempt to measure the higher revenues that would be generated because of better economic performance.

In reality, capital gains tax revenue skyrocketed, climbing from $62 billion in 1996 to more than $100 billion in 1999. But this figure is only a partial measure of the JCT's failure to grasp economic realities. In addition to mis-measuring the impact of a capital gains tax cut on financial markets, the JCT failed to estimate the impact of a lower capital gains tax cut on the overall economy. In other words, the lower capital gains tax rate not only boosted revenues from the capital gains tax, but also indirectly increased personal income tax, corporate income tax, and payroll tax revenues.

several places you seem to get caught in viewing the world through a distorted lens.  Starting at the last paragraph of your post with the "Dems are not even willing to FIGHT Osama bin Laden" statement which makes no sense (or requires much clarification) given the nearly 100% support of the Dems (measured by polls and congressional voting) for the invasion of Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama and close the terrorist training camps.  The Dems support for the Afghanistan invasion included support to remove the Taliban since it clearly had committed itself to support of Osama.  It is true that the Dems include a radical peace faction which opposes any FIGHT but this is a fringe group.  Seeing this group as representative of most Dems can only be accomplished by looking through a distorted lens.  It is the same distorted lens that allows some Dems to see the other party as a bunch of assassinationists because of Pat Robertson.

The second to last paragraph includes the same view distortion mentioned above via the  "Dems and the Media ignore" part of the statement but what I don't understand, either my fault (I'm too dumb) or your fault (more explanation required), is your point that "Osama is our main enemy in Iraq."  If you meant ... the Salafists (i.e., Osama and other like minded people) are our main enemy in Iraq...than I understand what you are saying.  If you meant something else, ok, but I didn't get it, so please explain.  If your meaning is as I rephrased above, we have a problem.  Our enemy, the Salafists, are doing some of the fighting, but most of the fighting seems to be from Iraqi insurgents that want to fight a civil war or want to throw the invaders out or both.  A better explanation is required for how fighting the wrong enemy, possibly in the wrong place, leads to success in either this battle or the war.  Painting a picture of Nirvana (establishing a model of freedom in the Middle East with democratic Iraqi's and safe Americans walking hand in hand on Baghdad's streets of gold) is an insufficient explanation when the current method does not look like it has any possibility of successfully reaching that picture.  Arguing that the time to get to this Nirvana will be long does not help.  I would love to walk to the top of Mt. Everest but more time will not ever get me to that Nirvana.  If the fighting in Iraq is a slow burn civil war (the slow part because we are there) or a fight against invaders, our presence in Iraq becomes a problem to successfully fighting the Salafists.  

The argument is made that our presence in Iraq prevents the Salafists from making Iraq a base of operation.  This argument is questionable on several levels.  First, it is not clear that Iraqis want Salafists basing their operations in Iraq any more than the Iraqis fighting the US want the US basing its operations in Iraq.  Second, and more telling, is that our presence in Afghanistan continues to permit the Osama Salafist faction to base their operation in that country.  Our presence appears to have little impact on the basing plans of the Salafists.

I am ready to go with reasonable arguments connecting the fight in Iraq to the war against the Salafists.  To date, President Bush has not made that argument nor did your post.

I'd start with 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' as pretty much the ultimate prohibition against abortion.

that abortion is immoral or that laws should not permit it except in unusual instances. But my point is that nothing in the Bible states that the government should ban abortion any more than anything in the Bible states that the government should guarantee everyone healthcare. Both are specific political positions which are derived from the very general moral and religious principles of the Bible (and elsewhere in the Christain tradition). Saying  "The Bible doesn't say that explicitly" is not a valid argument against either.

I was agreeing with Maximos that there weren't biblical arguments for single-payer health care operated by the state and the 'WWJD' argument raised by brendam98 was irrelevent.

Maybe I wasn't being clear or trying to be too clever.  The weather here in DC is too nice and I'm spending most of my afternoon trying to figure out how I can go play golf tomorrow.

I don't disagree that using the bible for political gain is a silly exercise.  Sorry if I was confusing.

that wasn't my point at all, nor what we were even discussing. Maximos in fact suggested a specific manifestation (charity), whereas my point was that Jesus had similar motivations (help poor and sick) to those maligned as trite. It doesn't matter whether the Bible supports single-payer health care, or charity, or JesusINC; the issue was the motivation behind the implementation.

Since I apparently haven't officially been banned yet, I'll respond to your constructive post.

My claim is that 1993 is a statistical anomaly, the beginning of the tech boom overcoming the tax policy.

Presumably there could have been other external factors taking place at the time of tax cuts as well which would render moot any effects of the tax law change.

GDP growth was higher 1997-2000 than 1993-1997 as the tax increase slowing economic activity in 1993 and increasing economic activity in 1997.

If the effects of the 1993 tax increase are to be discounted, the effects of the 1997 tax cut should also.  I'm sure we're in agreement that the Internet boom would have happened with or without tax law changes in 1997.

Cato is a bit selective with their statistics for the Reagan era.  Reagan cut taxes in 1981, then raised them in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.  Referring to CBO table 3, and factoring in inflation, here is the 1981 Reagan starting point in 1989 dollars and the end point also in 1989 dollars (billions):

Personal income tax: 1981: $398 1989: $446 (+12%)

Corporate income tax: 1981: $85 1989: $103 (+21%)

Social insurance tax: 1981: $254 1989: $359 (+41%)

Total: 1981: $737 1989: $908 (+23%)

I have stated before that revenues increase with economic growth, so a rise in real revenues is not sufficient to demonstrate that tax cuts increase revenue.  Note, however, the obvious statistic that by far the biggest percentage increase in revenue was from social insurance tax, which Reagan raised in 1983.  Since Reagan cut personal income taxes and raised S.S. taxes, the result on both counts looks quite clear: less revenue when you cut taxes; more when you increase them.

Now let's look at the 1990 baseline used by Cato, using the same time frame and again adjusting for inflation to 1998 dollars:

Personal income tax: 1990: $592 1998: $829 (+40%)

Corporate income tax: 1990: $119 1998: $189 (+59%)

Social insurance tax: 1990: $482 1998: $572 (+19%)

Total: 1990: $1,193 1998: $1,590 (+33%)

Needless to say, I find Cato's argument highly unpersuasive.  In particular, they lumped in the revenue from Social Security taxes and took credit for that as part of a tax cut, but it is clear the increase in S.S. taxes in 1983 accounts for the higher revenue (especially when you compare it with the Clinton era).  Clinton raised personal income taxes and indeed they showed a disproportionate increase, just as S.S. taxes did under Reagan.

As for the text from Heritage, I'm not in a position to discuss the 1920's and 1960's since I am unfamiliar with those eras.  I am open to the possibility we may have been on the wrong side of the Laffer curve before the 1920's and Kennedy's tax cut, but discussions of tax rates of 70% or 90% aren't really relevant to modern tax levels, which are far lower.  Their crediting the capital gains tax cut in 1997 to the technology boom again begs the question of whether the technology boom and subsequent market speculation would have happened if nothing had been done to the tax code.  I think we'll agree that the boom would have happened regardless.

affected only a small fraction of the population (1% I think). That's not enough people for the economy as whole to be affected one way or another. The increease in the gas tax did affect all of us except that it was rendered rather moot by a fall in oil prices at the same time.

As well, it is possible that the Clinton tax increase did not in fact trespass the inflection point of the Laffer Curve, reamining on the upward side of the parabola where an increase in the tax rate still produces a increase in revenues.

As for the tech boom, that did not get off the ground until the later 90s when Y2K hysteria set in and when everyone from hermits in the Sierras to the kid down the block with a lemonade stand had to have his own website.

...if more of your generation were dying in this war?

Mr. Bush has talked himself blue in the face explaining why we're in Iraq and why we must stay the course. Does he really have to continue to do so?

I think not.

Do I need a come back?  Simple spin from the right - see two can say that. Facts are facts and for my generation Bush was what I noted, spin it how ever you like and make up imaginary wishes but they remain facts.

Nick, that was sick. You need really to examine yourself if that is all you can up with?

And the great society can be argued ad infinitum but if you look at America during those times and even today and you look at other societies with similar programs there must be something to it. Maybe there is something to being good helping citizens. hmmm

The lack of desire to fight for our beliefs is a direct result in the misguided (or purposeful) teaching of American history.  For too long have the public schools at all levels tried to instill in the brain of the pupil that America is a horrible country built upon oppression and horror.

You must have attended Harvard prep or something. I went to public school and learned all about cherry trees, bicameral legislatures, emancipation proclamations, saving Europe's butt a couple of times, the works. No teacher of mine ever said anything close to what you postulate here. They must have been very well versed indeed at subliminally delivering their America sucks message because I didn't get it. This is a conspiracy theory that besmirches our nation's devoted and hard working teachers no matter what you think of their union.

In a nutshell I believe that GWB needs to have more regular televised addresses to the nation.  Pres conferences, speeches, you take your pick.  But have them in prime time.  That way the MSM is forced to cover him.

The MSM is not required to cover anything. Regular press conferences would be a mistake.

I am willing to follow him just about anywhere.

What can this statement possibly mean?

what are the reasons?

liberal reason: can't do his job

conservative reason: isn't doing his job

right? aren't they the same reasons? how can one be ok and the other not?

quite clearly that single-payer has never worked (i.e. has failed) everywhere it has been tried.

Such a bald statement of fact got me to wondering; where has it tried and failed?  And what are the criteria by which we judge whether a health care system is working or failing?  Longevity, infant mortality, what?  What measures exist for determining the overall health of or quality of healthcare delivered to a population?  

This are important issues.  Healthcare is really becoming a huge issue of this country.  If we are going to be branding certain systems as failures (and maybe they deserve it - I don't know)I think we ought to know what we are talking about.

said it failed in Quebec, and now they are permitting private insurance and private care in addition to the state run system.

failure as having to wait 6 months for an MRI to determine whether severe, recurrent headaches are the result of a sinus infection or tumours.  Or as having to wait 9 months to have blockages in one's coronary arteries reduced.  There are even more terrifying examples out there, involving cancer.  Single-payer means rationed care means diminished incentives means further rationing means shortages means waiting a long time for not only elective care, but necessary care.  

after reading some articles on the subject I am not sure that I agree that single-payer has "failed" in Quebec much less Canada.  

Canada does not seem to be unable to deliver healthcare, especially diagnostic and elective surgery, with the timeliness that Canadians are demanding.  In the case you refer to, a guy in his late 60s who had to wait almost a year for a hip replacement sued for the right to be able to purchase services in a competing private health system.  That is what the case was about.  The Court did not determine that Canadian system had failed and needed to be dismantled  - just that they couldn't ban a competing private system.  Denmark has already dual systems for a while.  If the Danish state health care system can't provide a "necessary" procedure in three months, you can schedule it a private hospital and the state will pay. Competition is always good.

If you wanted to turn the Canadian case around, a forty year old American breast cancer survivor who is now uninsurable by anyone at any cost is likely to say that our private insurance system has "failed."  And by the Canadian court's standard, she'd be right.

That is why it is so important to define what failure is and to come up with some standards for what a heath care system should deliver, whether through market forces or otherwise.  

what it promises in a timely manner.

One thing the US system doesn't promise is that everyone is insured, it only promises access.  Now you can debate whether that promise, or lack of is a good or bad thing, but the US government doesn't make any promises regarding healthcare.

In a single payer government run system, they do make promises, and when you can't get hip surgery, or knee surgery for ayear of more, then it is failing.

You want to know something scary-go hang out at some autism support boards where Canadians post-people with young kids needing services can't even get evaluations for 18 months or more out.  Now in the US some specialists are hard to get into, but within a couple of months my son was getting services even before he was officially diagnosed, because speech, OT and PT evaluations could be done before the specialists appointments.  My sons doctor is in super high demand, and he was seen within 6 months, I could have gotten an appointment within 2 had I wanted one of his partners (we chose to wait, because I wanted this specific specialist).

I wouldn't argue that the US system is perfect, but there is no reason for anyone to wait a year for hip surgery, and there is no reason a child with autism should have to wait 18 months to even get an evaluation, much less therapy and a diagnosis.

Thanks but no thanks, at this point in time, I will take our system with its weaknesses rather than the Canadian one.

As soon as we leave terrorists will take control of the country again.  They could not topple Sadam. They will not be able to stop the next madman that comes to power with out external help. Our intentions are good. But I believe our best intentions mean little in that part of the world. The best thing we could do is stop buying oil from the Middle East including Saudi Arabia. Then they can fight over the sand, which is all they had until oil was discovered.

WWII was a world battle. Iraq can not even compare to it.  

 there are occasions (and they are not rare) when the American healthcare system forces long waits on people, or denies them care. It took four months for my dental PPO to approve the crown work on my teeth this year (during which time one of the teeth broke and became abcessed), and my step-sister fell into a bureaucratic black hole when she was hit by a car driven by a co-worker in her workplace parking lot and has been bounced back and forth for over a year by her HMO, workman's comp, and the auto insurance companies--none of them wishing to take responsibility for the knee surgery she now needs.

Actually not true. For those who think that an active duty soldier in Iraq is in no more danger than someone driving a car in the US:

Deaths per 100,000 military personnel between 2003 and 2005:

All global US military personnel -  46.9

Active duty Army, Iraq           -  74.5

Active duty USMC, Iraq           - 168.4

Reserve and National Guard, Iraq - 288.3

Driving a car, US                -  15.7

I should read the statistics more closely before posting. The numbers for Army and USMC are global, i.e. death rates in Iraq per 100,000 of all soldiers and marines worldwide.

The 288 figure is for all active duty military in Iraq (all branches of the military).

as long as I can get full boat health insurance - there is no better system to get health care under than here in the U.S.

I just wish I didn't have to live in mortal fear of losing my coverage.  

I wish you'd ask on some of those boards if kids with autism have trouble getting private health insurance once they are 18. Can they get covered, is it more expensive?  

I assume you have private health insurance now.  Are there lifetime limits?  Are you worried you'll hit his before 18?  I don't know how expensive all that OT, PT etc. is.

Cotton, which is subsidized by the gov't.

which leads us to subsidize manufacturing plants that make cotton products so they can buy American Cotton (instead of foriegn).

It truly is a ridiculous spiral that shouldn't be reformed, just should be eliminated completely.

this was not one of the arguments for invading Iraq presented by the President and his staff in the runup to the war.

No kidding! Can you guess why? I'll bet FDR didn't tell the folks we were going to land at Normandy, either.

Most people seem to have figured out all by their lonesome that Saudia Arabia has got to go. Do you suppose the National Security staff missed that? Do you suppose that lining up an alternative oil source for all the countries that depend on Saudi oil is a necessary step in this exercise? Shall we tell the Saudis now, or wait?

Right now I'm in PA.  Bleah.  People keep asking if I'm from here since I'm an Army Recruiter in this area and I have to say that if I'd ever been here before, even in passing, I never would have come back.  Place is as bad a Fayette-Nam, NC.  Schools are only marginally better.  Makes my job extremely difficult when 75% of the kids interested in the Service either can't pass the test or are DQd for law violations.

I'm on my way back home, though.  Army sent me to SC first, then VA, no PA.  A good trend in my book.

What do you do in AK, Leon?

I was going to post some of those more acurate numbers below before I noticed I'd been beaten to the punch.

Maybe it's time to change your amusing but inaccurate tagline. Can I suggest:

'The military casualty rate in Iraq is 288/100,000. The Firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 34/100,000. Conclusion: Iraq is 8 1/2 times more dangerous than D.C.'

That the worldwide casulaty rate is not what he says? Or do you just not understand English?

Are all your bases, indeed, belong to us?

His figures are wrong. The global US military fatality rate is much lower, at 47/100,000 but so is the DC firearm rate at 34/100,000. Using these figures alone it is more dangerous to be in the army than to live in DC, so the tag line is indeed incorrect.

As for our respective understanding of English, type "casulaty" and "Are all your bases, indeed, belong to us?" into a spellchecker and grammar checker and see what happens :c)

Is a cultural reference.

I don't go after typos. Mine are infrequent, others' are not; but it's a stupid thing over which to go to war.