Politics, Government & Public Policy: December 2005 Archives
As I said before, the people who leaked information at the NSA eavesdropping operation are traitors and should be executed, so it's good to see that there's finally an investigation.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday."We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.
Earlier this month Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times "a shameful act." He said he presumed a Justice Department leak investigation into who disclosed the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation would get under way.
I wouldn't be surprised if the information turns out to have come from a Democratic member of the House or Senate Intelligence Committee. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not sure if it would be worse or better than if the leak came from an employee of the NSA.
It's a feature of bureaucracies that they waste and steal money, and no bureaucracy is better at it than a government. It's no surprise whatsoever to discover that up to 85% of government subsidized 9/11 recovery loans were improperly awarded to businesses who weren't touched by the attack. Some of the problem is undoubtedly incompetence by bureaucrats who can never be fired, but I'm sure there's plenty of graft and outright theft going on as well.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Texas golf course, a Nevada tanning salon and an Illinois candy shop were among small businesses that may have improperly received U.S. subsidized loans intended for firms hurt by the September 11 attacks, an internal government watchdog has found.The Small Business Administration's inspector general said in a report made public on Wednesday that in 85 percent of the sample of loans it reviewed, a company's eligibility to receive the money through the program could not be verified.
"Could not be verified" is a politico-speak for "lie".
At least with charities, if there's graft it can be criminally prosecuted when discovered and donors can redirect their contributions to less wasteful organizations. When it comes to government corruption there are rarely prosecutions because no politician wants to admit that his appointees are a problem, and bureaucrats protect their own. What's more, us "donors" (at gun-point) don't have many options for redirecting our contributions unless we want to move to another country.
President Bush's speech tonight on Iraq was just about perfect. It was succinct and went straight to the heart of the matter. He showed humility in admitting that administering Iraq after the war has been harder than expected, and he was wise to ask his political opponents to support the effort for the sake of the country.
It's plain and simple: the person or persons who leaked information about highly classified NSA surveillance programs are traitors in a time of war and should be sought out, prosecuted and executed. President Bush is right to be outraged, and every American should feel the same way.
One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader. But Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said. ...Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. "They've been through the whole thing," Hoekstra said.
Congressional leaders knew about the progam and allowed it. Leaking national security secrets on a personal whim, because you happen to think the secrets aren't worth keeping, is one of the most dishonorable actions an American can take. "Unpatriotic" doesn't begin to describe the traitorous scum who betrayed the secrets entrusted to them, and The New York Times isn't much better.
Update:
Doc Rampage and Dean Esmay agree.
Looks like the Democrats have given up on trying to form a coherent message on national defense and are throwing their hands up in the air... in frustration, not surrender!
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Definitely the people we should put in charge of the country. Anyway, I suppose having no position is better than enabling your opponents to make commercials with you waving white flags.
In my post two years ago about shrinking government I wrote that although cutting tax rates can increase tax revenue, growing revenue shouldn't be conceded as beneficial. In the wake of some much-needed tax cuts, I think conservatives need to make the point that in order to limit the power of government we need to limit the resources available to the government.
"By cutting taxes, you grow the economy, and you generate an enhanced flow of revenues to the Treasury," said Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Rules Committee.Although the federal tax revenue has grown since the passage of the 2003 tax cuts -- from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005 -- the tax revenue measured against the size of the economy remains below the 2002 level and well below the level of 2001, when the first of Bush's five tax cuts was passed. "The argument that tax cuts will grow the economy and pay for themselves is very attractive, but it's just not true," MacGuineas said.
Revenue grew after Reagan's tax cuts, but ultimately the goal of conservatives should be to convince people that cutting government revenue is good. Of course, to be credible Republicans will have to also be willing to cut spending.
Unfortunately my email is down at the moment so I can't ask Ben Bateman directly... but is this really the best way to design a tax system?
When Congress is in session, it's best to arrange your financial affairs very defensively. Herewith, some specifics.From the start of 2001 through this past september Congress made (by tax publisher CCH's count) 1,971 changes to the U.S. tax code--roughly 3 for each day it was in session. And all this tinkering produced what? The need for still more changes, of course.
The article goes on for several thousand words explaining a mind-boggling array of tax considerations that middle-class earners need to take into account, and it leaves me feeling utterly forlorn.
I like James Buchanan's perspective on governmental overreaching and the message of public choice theory:
A central message of public choice theory tells us that if politics generates undesirable results, it is better to examine the rules than to argue about different policies or to elect different representatives. Well and good. But those of us who have peddled this message have been too reluctant to get down and dirty with proposals for constitutional change. Hence, I felt challenged by the editor’s invitation to propose three specific amendments.
As many have observed, for better or worse, there isn't a lot of difference between our political parties... both want to spend us into bankruptcy, and neither is willing to leave us alone. Public choice theory says that the solution isn't to vote for different people (who will continue to let us down) but to change the rules of the game by, e.g., amending the Constitution.
Mr. Buchanan goes on to describe three amendments he favors, so I figure it's worth linking to one I have advocated for years: the Sunset Amendment, which would prevent Congress from passing any law that would stay in effect for more than six years.
