This article by Jacob Sullum exemplifies why, despite my libertarian sympathies, I wouldn't trust our country entirely to them because libertarians' priorities are all wrong. Sullum goes on at length about how the Republican domination of government has led to overspending and waste, and almost all of his points are correct except that he totally neglects to mention the single defining issue of our time: the War on Terror.
Hassett's specific topic is federal jobs, which shrank by 200,000 under Bill Clinton but have grown by 79,000 under George W. Bush. "Strange as it sounds," Hassett writes, "Clinton's record in this particular area is exemplary next to Bush's."
The new Department of Homeland Security probably accounts for all those 79,000 and more (at least 50,000 airport screeners alone). Should the federal government be screening luggage? I don't know if it's ideal, but the old system sure wasn't working.
I'm eagerly anticipating a Republican defeat because the party richly deserves it after failing so miserably to deliver on its promises of smaller (or even slightly less gargantuan) government. The combination of a Democratic Congress and a Republican president could not possibly be worse, and might very well be better, than the current arrangement, in which a Republican executive and a Republican legislature conspire to mulct our money and filch our freedoms.
Fine and good except for the fact that we're in a fight for our lives against Islamofascists who want to do more than waste our money -- they want to kill us. I believe that a divided government might be more stingy with my tax dollars, but I don't believe for a second that giving the Democrats another inch of power would help us defeat Islamofascism or make us any safer.
Bush and the Republican Congress turned Clinton's budget surpluses into deficits that peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. Federal spending as a share of GDP, which fell under Clinton to 18.5 percent, is again above 20 percent. Discretionary spending has increased faster under Bush than it did under Lyndon Johnson, no slouch in doling out taxpayer dollars. Earmarks have reached record levels, and the abuse of emergency spending bills is rampant.
No mention at all that "discretionary spending" includes military and homeland defense, which yes, have increased. I wonder why? True, there have been massive increases in addition to defense spending, but not all the deficit is due to pork.
Far from reforming entitlement programs, the Republicans compassionately created an exorbitant Medicare drug benefit that will add trillions of dollars to the program's long-term shortfall--the gift that keeps on taking. Far from reducing the federal government's scope, they have extended its reach into state and local matters such as education, abortion, marriage law, and end-of-life medical decisions.
Yes, the Medicare drug benefit is wasteful. As for the other "local matters" that Sullum claims Republicans have extended the federal government's reach into:
- Education: The federal government was already way too involved. The No Child Left Behind act is certainly flawed, but at least it attempts to require that federal dollars be spent usefully. However, I'd side with the libertarians and eliminate the Department of Education entirely.
- Abortion: The federal courts removed this issue from local or state control long before Republicans were in charge.
- Marriage law: Sullum is presumably referring to the issue of gay marriage. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act in 1996. Federal involvement so far seems to be limited to making sure that states don't run roughshod over each other.
- End-of-life medical decisions: Again I'd agree with the libertarians. If states can handle murder, they can handle euthanasia.
Sullum tangentially refers to the War on Terror in these next paragraphs, but only to imply that he'd prefer that we didn't fight it so vigorously.
Bush has either actively sought bigger government, as with the Medicare bill and the No Child Left Behind Act, or acquiesced in it, as with transportation spending and farm subsidies. Returning the favor, the Republicans who control Congress have acquiesced in the expansion of executive power, behaving as if they expect their party to control the White House forever.It takes no leap of faith to believe that a Congress run by Democrats would be more inclined to impose limits on the president's surveillance, detention, and war powers. Or to suggest that Bush might suddenly find his veto pen when confronted by free-spending Democrats instead of free-spending Republicans.
Executive power always expands during wars, and then tends to contract again later. It's a dynamic system. Yes, it would have been nice if the Republicans had stuck with the small-government principles that led to the Republican take-over of Congress in 1994, but they didn't. It was a huge missed opportunity. However, even though wasting money is bad it's not as bad as would be losing the War on Terror; as Sullum acknowledges, it appears that President Bush acquiesced to Congressional demands for spending in exchange for the power he needs to win the war. He would probably have had to have made the same compromises with a Democrat Congress, and if the Democrats win next week the only difference will be their reluctance to let him fight on our behalf.
MW: And what have we gotten for national security improvements as a result of those 79,000 additional federal government jobs and expansion of Presidential power? Slim to bupkus. Our nation isn't any safer from terrorist attack: airports are very porous (and occasionally focus on nonsense things like "gel" items, etc.), seaports are just as porous as they were pre-9/11, and while our national security agencies are all under one roof, Bush administration apologists like you, MW, don't seem to realize that since government bureaucracy doesn't work best for other aspects of our daily lives, it also doesn't work best for such a big-ticket item like national security. All of the problems with how agencies communicated and acted that we had pre-9/11 could certainly have been fixed without the creation of an entire new federal department and additional layers of bureaucracy. The fact that the current arrangement is, on paper, better than what preceded it doesn't make it what should've been done or what still should be done.
The expansion of Presidential power, that you rightly indicated grows in times of war, is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case.. with a war that will likely go on in perpetuity.. saying the expansion of Presidential power is okay, or better than any alternative, is simply foolish.
Overall, your characterization of this is far too much a slap on the wrist and far too little a criticism of what should be criticized.
I think both major parties have screwed up royally in the past 12 years. At this point, you can't really pin the blame on the Democrats. Right now, I vote border security.
Mark: We're really not any safer? Strange, considering that throughout the Clinton Presidency we suffered a terrorist attack almost every year, and now there hasn't been one since oh... 9/11. That seems like an improvement to me. Does that mean that I think everything is hunky dory? No. But you've got to give credit where it's due. Libertarians can't see the forest for the trees... they often get so caught up defending important civil liberties that they forget those liberties won't be that useful to corpses.
MW: No, we're not any safer. The absence of attacks since 9/11 is not proof that we are. The distraction for terrorists and those who are anti-American (Iraq) does not preclude future attacks on America which, as airport/seaport insecurity demonstrate, would still be rather easy for terrorists to carry out.
Additionally, even if we are safer which, for the sake of argument, let's say were true.. can you honestly say that the creation of DHS is to thank for it.. or justified by it?
MW said: "Libertarians can't see the forest for the trees... they often get so caught up defending important civil liberties that they forget those liberties won't be that useful to corpses."
Since when is it a one-or-the-other thing? That's a false framing of the choices. We don't need to have the Department of Homeland Security or the in-perpetuity expansion of Presidential power to be safe from terrorists, and the lack of those things does not translate into "corpses" to which important civil liberties "won't be that useful".
Mark: "No, we're not any safer. The absence of attacks since 9/11 is not proof that we are."
Suppose there had been more attacks, would you accept the premise that more attacks wouldn't have proven that we were less safe?
I apologize in advance for the clumsy wording.
ucf: Actually, I think we're less safe.. even though we've had no homeland attacks since 9/11. Our involvement in Iraq is fostering and inspiring more terrorists and anti-Americanism than it's defeating. Coupled with our insecure airports/seaports, and you have a scenario where there's more people out to get us.. and just as many ways and nearly as much opportunity for them to do so.
Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.
Ernest Hemingway
Private: If we all just go home the war will be over.
Lieutenant: You sound like a man who has never been conquered and you think it would not be too bad.
Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway
Oh, what a lovely soundbite..
Come on.. let's be real. Of course it must be won. But here's the rub: what we're doing isn't working.
Mark: "Actually, I think we're less safe.. even though we've had no homeland attacks since 9/11."
So would more attacks prove that we were more safe? If our involvement is creating all these new terrorists, you would think there would be more attacks on us, instead there are fewer. What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for us to pull out and then attack us? That doesn't make any sense.
ucf: No, it wouldn't. Right now, Iraq is the focus for terrorists, but that flypaper strategy is, as I said in another post in another thread, disrupting our nation building efforts in Iraq and creating more terrorists than it's killing. Explain to me how, long term, that makes us more safe.
Mark--Iraq is the focus for the terrorists because they know that a stable, democratic Iraq would be a huge setback for them, one that they may not be able to recover from. It is not the presence of US troops that is creating terrorists, it is the perception that the terrorists are winning, which is being created not by the facts on the ground but by the defeatism of the left. People love a winner and hate a loser; Democrats are spending a lot of time trying to create the perception that we are losing and the terrorists are winning, all to gain a short term political advantage. If they succeed, we will pay a steep price for their short-sightedness.
ucf: True or false; Iraqi people are not happy about having their country used as terrorist flypaper. (the answer is 'True')
True or false; Many Iraqi people don't like being occupied by the US. (the answer is 'True')
True or false; The results of the situation as outlined above are creating more terrorists and anti-Americanism. (again, the answer is 'True')
As I've said before, terrorists don't care if they're winning or losing. Their beliefs demand that they attack us and everyone who doesn't share in those beliefs, regardless of whether they're being successful or not. The relative futility of their goals, in the face of our military might, has not resulted in a cessation of hostilities and/or mass surrender on their part.
Democrats win on Tuesday and we'll all pay a steep price? Wow.. where was it I heard that only the left uses fear to shape people's opinions. Apparently the right has no problem using it as well.
"True or false; Iraqi people are not happy about having their country used as terrorist flypaper. (the answer is 'True')"
True or false, the terrorist will leave Iraq to develop into a peaceful, democratic nation as soon as the US leaves. Hmm, tough one.
"True or false; Many Iraqi people don't like being occupied by the US. (the answer is 'True')"
True or false; Many Iraqis don't like chocolate ice cream. True or false; many Iraqis don't like changing dirty diapers. See many Iraqis don't like lots of things, but WRT the US troops stationed in Iraq, many Iraqis would prefer the US troops being there to giving the terrorists free reign to set up the next Afghanistan or Iran in Iraq.
"True or false; The results of the situation as outlined above are creating more terrorists and anti-Americanism. (again, the answer is 'True')"
So the answer is what, accede to their demands, because not to just creates more terrorists? If fighting terrorists only serves to create more terrorists, than I guess the appropriate solution is to just quit and hope they'll leave us alone. I am sure that is not what you advocate, but it is hard to see any other result to what you propose.
"Wow.. where was it I heard that only the left uses fear to shape people's opinions."
Hmm, let's see, a guy with a history of violence threatens me and my family, I laugh it off as big talk. The next day I see this guy kicking the cr** out of another guy I heard him threaten, and shortly after that I see him walk into a gun store. Is fear an appropriate response? Being the coward I am, I go to the police, the first police officer says don't be such a scaredy cat, he doesn't really mean it, and besides it's my own fault for planting that tree to close to the fence line or looking at his wife or not curbing my dog or, whatever. The second says I was right to come in, that he probably needs to investigate this, offers to assign some protection to me and my family, and then suggests I take some protective measures of my own like an alarm or weapon. Whose advice should I take?
ucf: Get this through your head, once and for all: Doing what I suggest would not be "giving terrorists free reign".
Fighting terrorists doesn't create more terrorists if you're fighting them with the correct strategy. Fighting them in, and attracting them to, the same place where you're also trying to setup a free and democratic country is not the correct strategy.
Big government, our government, doesn't work very well here. Why should we expect it to work elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East?
As the neo-conservatives have hopefully learned, "regime change" is just the tip of the iceberg. A culture and society that is not ready for democracy cannot be fast-tracked into being ready, willing, and able to make one work. Removing a dictator without giving a second thought to what happens next is almost more of a disservice to that nation's people than doing nothing. Removing a figure of power automatically demands making sure the right influence fills the void. We should've all been so lucky for it to be simply a matter of "cleaning up a few dead-enders". We opened a Pandora's Box we had no idea (and didn't even try to figure out ahead of time) how to close. Is that really a better choice than all others?
"Get this through your head, once and for all: Doing what I suggest would not be "giving terrorists free reign"."
It may not be your intention, but it would certainly be the result. Call it the Law of Unitended Consequences.
"Fighting terrorists doesn't create more terrorists if you're fighting them with the correct strategy. "
I keep hearing about this magical "correct strategy", that would have turned Iraq into Sweeden on the Tiber in a few short, bloodless, weeks, but I never hear any specifics about how it would work. There just seems to be this general assumption that because you (or Kerry, or Clintion, or whoever) are so much smarter than Bush, your strategy would naturally work perfectly and it's only because Bush is so dumb that things aren't.
It doesn't have to be the result and it probably wouldn't be the result.
And don't even talk about the law of unintended consequences. The situation as it is now has plenty of that going on. Iran and Syria have stood to gain everything as a result of Iraq. The more we continue down this "stay the course", the more they're going to benefit.
Bush is an idiot. Period. Colin Powell's approach to this would've been
1. Massive overwhelming force, coupled with..
2. .. a plan for what happens next, and finished with..
3. .. an exit strategy.
Did anyone in the Bush administration listen to him? No. Did we get anything like that in Iraq? Absolutely not.
"Bush is an idiot. Period. Colin Powell's approach to this would've been
1. Massive overwhelming force, coupled with..
2. .. a plan for what happens next, and finished with..
3. .. an exit strategy."
Of course the problem is that the enemy doesn't always follow your plans, in fact they have plans too, and a part of their plan is to disrupt you plans.
I see these 3 points a lot. They are used like some magic incantation designed to make the user appear like he knows what he's talking about, when he doesn't. When pressed for specifics on what overwhelming force would look like or what the plan for "what happens next" should be, or what the exit strategy (other than a timetable for withdrawl) should be, they say "oh I don't have enough information to be specific, but Bush is an idiot, so I know my plan would be better." Plus it's very hard to criticize "I'd do it better"
ucf: You can't disrupt a plan that doesn't exist. We didn't have a plan. Our leaders didn't even think there'd be an insurgency, or that we'd have to be prepared to protect the power vacuum that Saddam's absence would create.
"You can't disrupt a plan that doesn't exist. "
So you think George Bush (the idiot who keeps beating you guys), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell (remember Paul Bremmer was a State Department guy, not DoD), Don Rumsfeld and his generals and all their subordinates all just decided to go into Iraq without a plan for when they defeated Saddam's forces? Doesn't sound plausible to me, but since you haven't seen the plan that must mean it doesn't exist because they would have consulted you, right? And if they did have a plan it would have gone perfectly, except it didn't, but if they called you, you would have given them the perfect plan right? And it would have been:
1. Use overwhelming force
2. Have a plan for what happens next
3. Have an exit strategy
So simple, and yet so meaningless.
Here's a short history lesson, back in 1905 a German General named von Schifflen developed a brilliant plan for beating the French in 6 weeks. It was constantly updated and finally implemented in 1914, the problem was that there weren't enough roads in France to support his overwhelming force, so the troops couldn't move accoring to plan and things stalled. It gave the British time to deploy and slow down the Germans enough that they were able to be stopped at the Marne. The moral of the story is plans don't always go according to plan and no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
ucf: Bush is an idiot surrounded by brilliant political operatives. He certainly didn't get elected President because he's terribly intelligent or knowledgeable about the issues he'd face as President.
I guess you're right.. they did have a plan.. one that included how we'd be welcome as liberators with a parade and massive surrender of any resistance fighters. Here's the problem, though. Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned, prior to the invasion, that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow. The "plan" put together largely by Rumsfeld ignored those warnings. The insurgency began at the beginning of the war, yet military leaders were slow to grasp what they were really going to be facing.
So yeah, they did have a plan.. but their plan was *so* wrong and *so* mistaken with regards to the insurgency, especially given the ample warning ahead of time about the threat, that it makes a lot of people wonder what these planners were smoking. Even the British were concerned that the Bush administration didn't understand the insurgency threat before the invasion.. and even warned the administration about it.. but Cowboy Bush and Billy-the-Kid Rumsfeld apparently shrugged it off.
Your "history lesson" couldn't be less relevant. We're not the Germans of 1905. We're the most powerful nation on the planet with the most resources at our disposal. There's no excuse for the mishandling of the Iraq invasion.
"Bush is an idiot surrounded by brilliant political operatives. He certainly didn't get elected President because he's terribly intelligent or knowledgeable about the issues he'd face as President."
This is tiresome, terribly unoriginal, and really kind of dumb. Bush has been confounding Democrats since he beat "Ma" Richards in 1994, just deal with it. You seem to fancy yourself a smart guy, but I haven't seen anything in your posts that would indicate any original thought or even that you know much at all about the topics you are trying to debate; just a bunch of vague generalities sprinkled with liberal quantities of "Bush is an idiot." Typical really.
"So yeah, they did have a plan.. but their plan was *so* wrong and *so* mistaken with regards to the insurgency, especially given the ample warning ahead of time about the threat, that it makes a lot of people wonder what these planners were smoking."
I tend to agree that the plan was flawed, but not for reasons you would agree with. I think that they went into Iraq far to concerned with minimizing Iraqi casualties and destruction of property. The reconstruction of Japan and Germany after WW2 went relatively smoothly because they understood that they had been decisively beaten. Their shattered armies and burning cities were testament to their total defeat and humiliation. We chose not to go that route in Iraq and we largely allowed their army to retire from the field undefeated and spared their cities, mainly striking military targets. In my opinion we are paying the price for trying to be nice.
"Your "history lesson" couldn't be less relevant. We're not the Germans of 1905. We're the most powerful nation on the planet with the most resources at our disposal. There's no excuse for the mishandling of the Iraq invasion."
It is not surprising that you are ignorant of history and choose to dismiss its lessons. Germany in 1905 was arguably the most powerful nation on the planet. They came within a whisker of winning WW1 in 1914 and then again in 1917. Germany had pioneered the military art of staff planning. There ability to decisively defeat Austria in 1866 and France in 1870 was do in large part to their superior planning and tactical training, but yet the even the great planners of the German General Staff missed something simple, like making sure that you have enough roads to move your troops to the point of attack.
Oh please.. political success has little if anything to do with the candidate's knowledge about the issues. Having one does not necessitate having the other.
Germany vs. its enemies in 1905-1914 is nowhere near a valid comparison with the current situation. At that time, Germany was among relative equals. We, today, are not.
"Oh please.. political success has little if anything to do with the candidate's knowledge about the issues."
Of course you would have to say that, because your side keeps losing. It's just obvious that if everybody had your grasp of the issues they would vote your way, because they don't they must be stupid.
"Germany vs. its enemies in 1905-1914 is nowhere near a valid comparison with the current situation. At that time, Germany was among relative equals. We, today, are not."
The point is not that Germany was militarily superior to the other nations of Europe, even though they clearly were. The point is that Germany pioneered the art of strategic planning and yet even the vaunted planners of The German General Staff missed something as simple as making sure there were enough roads to move and supply the troops to the battle field and they didn't plan on the tenacity of the British troops at Ypres. The point is that even the best plans don't survive first contact with the enemy. You seem to think that if only Al Gore (of course if Gore had won, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because he's so much smarter than Bush?) or John Kerry had planned the invasion, it would have worked perfectly, been bloodless, and resulted in the creation of a Sweden on the Tiber in a matter of weeks and we'd all be making love, not war. In my opinion, the most likely result of a Gore win would have been a resumption of the Clinton policy of firing off a bunch of cruise missiles and then declaring victory. This would have further cemented the terrorist's and their supporter's opinion of us as a paper tiger and emboldened them to attempt further attacks. Defeating Saddam and the Taliban at least demonstrated that we are quite capable of taking them out when we won't to and probably made some of the other Middle East countries (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for example) re-evaluate their tacit support of Al Queda and it's associated groups. Abandoning Iraq would probably serve to make some Middle East countries re-re-evaluate their opinion of the US and its willingness to defend its interests.
Oh, make no mistake about it, I don't care if they advocate my opinions.. but I at least want them to think and act like they know what they're doing. Bush is not an example of that.
Of course plans must be changed to deal with the enemy, but are you saying the failure to heed the warnings of a significant insurgency are excused or explained away by the fact that plans are often changed to deal with the enemy? That's a ridiculous notion.