Cato Institute President Ed Crane succinctly explains why Social Security must be modernized.
Buried within this essay is this critical core point: "The goal of Social Security reform should be to provide workers with the best possible retirement option, not simply to preserve the current system. If solvency were the only goal, that could be accomplished by raising taxes or cutting benefits, though this would be a bad deal for younger workers."
It goes on: "A successful Social Security reform will result in a solvent, sustainable system. It will improve Social Security's rate of return, provide better retirement benefits, and treat women, minorities, and low-income workers more fairly."
The more you read about Social Security private accounts, the angrier you will become... that America didn't do this years ago.
Unless you already are an expert on Social Security private retirement accounts, I suggest you read the whole thing.
Unless you are dying, this debate will affect your life.
Cato Institute President Ed Crane succinctly explains why Social Security must be modernized.
Professor Bainbridge reports that Oliver Stone "plans to explore the possibility of an affair between former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan in his next movie."
The Professor has his own thoughts on this, to which I'll add this: Isn't it ironic that the supposedly P.C. Hollywood left can't imagine a female head of government (Thatcher) without picturing her in bed with somebody?
Zip it up, Oliver. Sometimes men and women get along above the neck.
On a lighter note, if Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had gotten together, can you imagine what their kids would have been like?
Fellow bloggers, please read this New York Times article about a lawsuit just filed by the Baltimore Sun. The lawsuit asserts that the Governor of Maryland does not have the legal right to decline interviews with several Sun reporters the governor believes are refusing to present facts objectively.
If the Baltimore Sun can convince a court that it has a "First Amendment right" to interview the governor of Maryland and his staff against their will, don't we bloggers have a "First Amendment right" to interview any government official we wish to? You bet we do.
If the Sun suit has merit.
Addendum: Jeff at The Shape of Days has posted some fun comments about this issue.
It is good news that President Bush has asked Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to stay.
If you listen quietly, however, you can almost hear the gnashing of teeth in certain quarters.
David Limbaugh has an excellent piece up about this. I agree wholeheartedly with most of it, save David's apparent view that Rumsfeld enjoyed a honeymoon with the press after he first took office. As I recall it, the honeymoon began only after 9/11, coinciding with the birth of "Rumstud," the septuagenarian sex symbol.
To check my memory, I did a quick lookup of articles in the mainstream press between 3/1/2001 and 9/10/01, using only the word "Rumsfeld" as a search term.
The result is not scientific, but I found scant evidence of a pre-9/11 honeymoon:
Rumsfeld: Older but Wiser? The infighter who tried to change the Pentagon has failed so far. Here's why (Time Magazine 8/27/01):
In seven months as Pentagon chief, Rumsfeld has managed to spook the military, alienate defense contractors, mobilize much of Capitol Hill against him -- and even make some in the White House question his toughness.Rumsfeld on High Wire of Defense Reform; Military Brass, Conservative Lawmakers Are Among Secretive Review's Unexpected Critics (Washington Post, May 20, 2001):
In his first four months at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld... [has] rallied an unlikely collection of critics, ranging from conservative members of Congress and his predecessor as defense secretary to some of the generals who work for him. In dozens of interviews, those people expressed deep concern that Rumsfeld has acted imperiously, kept some of the top brass in the dark and failed to maintain adequate communications with Capitol Hill.For Rumsfeld, Many Roadblocks; Miscues -- and Resistance -- Mean Defense Review May Produce Less Than Promised (Washington Post, 8/7/01):
'He's blown off the Hill, he's blown off the senior leaders in the military, and he's blown off the media,' said Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the conservative Project for the New American Century. 'Is there a single group he's reached out to?'
... Many of those interviewed said they are worried that the future of the [military] institution to which they have devoted their adult lives is being decided without them. One senior general unfavorably compared Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Pentagon with Colin L. Powell's performance as secretary of state. 'Mr. Powell is very inclusive, and Mr. Rumsfeld is the opposite,' said the general, who knows both men. "We've been kept out of the loop.'
Added another senior officer: 'The fact is, he is disenfranchising people.'
Some noted that the Bush administration came into office vowing to restore the military's trust in its civilian overseers. 'Everyone in the military voted for these guys, and now they feel like they aren't being trusted,' a Pentagon official said.
The Army, which has the reputation of being the most doggedly obedient of all the services, appears to be closest to going into opposition against the new regime. Army generals are especially alarmed...
If anything, Rumsfeld's relations with Capitol Hill have been even more tumultuous...
...six months into an administration that campaigned on a promise to rebuild the military, Rumsfeld's ambitious plans are under fire from all sides....Rumsfeld's Overhaul Struggle (Newsday 5/28/2001):
"There's a strong sense of alienation between the uniformed leadership and the civilians," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who supported Bush during the campaign.
Why someone as savvy as Rumsfeld is having such difficulty has become a major topic of conversation at the Pentagon and in national security circles...
'How bad is it? I think it is pretty bad,' said Larry Seaquist, who worked in the Cheney-era Pentagon. Seaquist said that senior career officials at the Pentagon, who had expected to work with professionals, 'now fear they're shackled to incompetence.'
...Others argue... the new administration picked the wrong people for the Pentagon. Some people criticize Rumsfeld personally, saying he was not heavily involved during the campaign in formulating the Bush defense policy he was later asked to carry out. Others point to Rumsfeld's failure to recruit Richard L. Armitage for the No. 2 job at the Defense Department...
Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of Rumsfeld's second tour at the Pentagon has been his sour relationship with Congress -- not just with the Democratic-controlled Senate but also with Republicans in both chambers..."
More and more, Rumsfeld appear[s] to be isolated, and [Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)] has questioned whether he is in over his head. That image has blunted Rumsfeld's reputation as a decisive corporate executive with personal experience in Congress, the White House and as Pentagon chief during the Ford administration.Why the Hawks Are Carpet-Bombing Rumsfeld (Business Week 8-06-2001):
Levin, who is opposed to defense increases that will jeopardize social programs, seemed to take the wind from Rumsfeld's sails after the committee meeting last Thursday. 'I don't have a good grasp of where the secretary is headed," Levin said. "I don't think the secretary has a good grasp of where the secretary is headed.'
When George W. Bush unveiled his Administration team, three Washington veterans stood out as guaranteed superstars: Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Six months in, two of the three have lived up to expectations. Then there's Rumsfeld.But inside a May 25, 2001 Washington Post story containing ample quotes from Rumsfeld's critics was this, three and a half months before 9/11:
To convey his view of the world, and especially of the necessity to change the military to meet the threats of the 21st century, Rumsfeld distributed to [Senators on the Armed Services Committee] a four-page handout. A major theme was the inevitability of strategic surprise -- the notion that threats will come from unexpected directions.Sounds like Rumsfeld hit the nail on the head with that one.
'History should compel planners to humbly acknowledge that 2015 will almost certainly be little like today and certainly notably different from what today's experts are confidently forecasting,' the document said. 'And recent events suggest that [the Department of Defense] at least give some thought to the flexibility of a capability-based strategy, as opposed to simply a threat-based strategy.'
That jargon-laden sentence basically means that the U.S. military needs to move away from a Cold War structure designed to counter one large, clear threat -- from the Soviet Union -- and to develop capabilities to respond to everything from ballistic missiles to terrorist attacks.
David Limbaugh says he admires Rumsfeld -- that it "takes mighty broad shoulders to agree to put up with what promises to be more abuse from these armchair quarterbacking naysayers. But Rumsfeld strikes me as a guy who doesn't require the slightest approval from these lightweight know-nothings whose seeming mission in life is to second guess and ridicule him." On these core points, I could not agree with David more.
Addendum: David Limbaugh has added a note to his post on the media honeymoon point. It appears he and I are now in complete agreement. (Thanks for the note, David.)
Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters explains why Senator Mark Dayton just might be one of the last people one would want to share a foxhole with.
"Paranoid and panicky," Says Captain Ed about Dayton in one of many jabs. "Just the kind of man you want tagging along with you in a tense neighborhood."
And they say ladies have claws? Ouch!
Still, have to admit, it is a fun read.
UPI has a wire story today by Peter Roff providing additional details on the Congressional access to tax returns story. An excerpt:
What actually happened, said one source with knowledge of the back story, is that the amendment was an effort to give appropriators and staff with oversight of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service the ability to make on-site visits to check out how the money they approve each year for the agency is being spent. The problem with making that kind of visit to an IRS facility is that one could potentially encounter one -- a few, dozens, stacks, truckloads -- of tax returns that, to understate things a bit, the federal government takes great pains to protect from public scrutiny and prying eyes.The provision, as has been well-reported, is being struck from the bill in any case. But one can't help but wish that some of the details in this story and the similar AP wire story running today -- which could have been ascertained by making a few phone calls -- had been learned before some politicians in both parties went before microphones and claimed that something far more sinister was afoot.
There are folks over at the House Ways and Means Committee, which has administrative oversight of the IRS as well as the U.S. tax system, who can go visit these sites because of an existing provision in U.S. law -- a provision that Appropriations Committee staff working with the IRS were trying to get for themselves. And that's where it all comes apart.
The committee staff, according to the source, left it to the IRS to draft the language and then inserted the amendment into the bill without too much consideration and without the knowledge of U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the chairman of the IRS-overseeing Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Transportation and Independent Agencies.
What the bureaucrats who drafted the measure forgot to do was include language extending to the Appropriations Committee types the same kind of exceptionally tough privacy safeguards -- including rigid consequences like possible jail time for those who do not respect the privacy protections -- under which the Ways and Committee folks have to operate...
The AP, via the Guardian, has a story shedding light on why there was a provision in a recently-approved appropriations bill allowing additional Congressional access to IRS tax returns.
The entire matter, if this report is accurate, looks to be far more benign than one might have thought, given the hullabaloo surrounding it two weeks ago.
Business Week asks: Was meddling in Ukraine's election Putin's biggest blunder?
Is Russian President Vladimir V. Putin losing his touch? Once admired for his steely efficiency, Putin suddenly doesn't seem to be able to get anything right. He has managed to alienate Russian Big Business and many foreign investors by destroying oil company Yukos. September's terrorist attack on Beslan left him looking weak and ineffective and exposed the disorderly state of Russia's security forces. His bureaucratic reforms have led to administrative chaos, while cuts in the social benefit system have sparked Russia's biggest public protests in years. But when future historians come to write the history of Putin's presidency, they may well conclude that his biggest mistake was his disastrous policy in Ukraine, where he has just suffered a failure of epic proportions.Read it all here.
Putin clearly imagined he was promoting the obvious winner when he interfered so heavily in Ukraine's presidential election in favor of Viktor Yanukovych, the candidate backed by outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. Yet the millions of protestors on the streets of Kiev and other Ukrainian cities, and the collapse of the government's authority have made it impossible for the Nov. 21 election result -- which had Yanukovych winning by 49.46% to 46.61% -- to stand. If there is a fair reelection, the candidate demonized by Russia, pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, will almost certainly win, just as he would have won the Nov. 21 runoff but for massive ballot-stuffing, documented in detail by international observers. There's a risk that pro-Yanukovych regions in eastern Ukraine will refuse to accept Yushchenko as President, in which case Ukraine could split apart.
Either alternative will represent a massive blow to Putin... A divided Ukraine would lead to instability in a region where Russia has important economic interests -- 80% of the gas Russia exports to Europe goes through Ukraine -- and would be a permanent point of tension between Russia and the West. If the country remains united, as now seems likely, Putin's goal of linking Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in a new economic union dominated by Russia looks like a pipe dream. A Yushchenko government is not likely to be great friends with Russia after Putin's blatant interference in the election. And if Kuchma and Yanukovych figure out a way to retain power, a deeply unpopular regime in Kiev would hardly be a stable partner for Russia...
Putin would have been wise to hedge his bets in Ukraine, not least because Yushchenko was always the favorite to win a fair election. Instead, the Russian President made the election in Ukraine a personal priority, pulling out all the stops to secure a Yanukovych victory. Russian advisers and election funds flooded Ukraine, Russian state TV, which is widely received in Ukraine, unleashed a wave of pro-Yanukovych propaganda, and Putin himself appeared on Ukrainian TV to endorse Yanukovych. All these efforts failed to win over proudly independent Ukrainian voters. "Russian political advisers and spin doctors simply don't understand the situation in Ukraine," says Kost Bondarenko, an independent political consultant in Kiev.
The irony is that Russia could quite easily have lived with a Yushchenko victory....
The damage to Russia's interests goes well beyond Ukraine. Putin's interference further alienates opinion in the West, which is increasingly inclined to see the Russian President as a throwback to an earlier, scarier era. Despite its present anti-Western rhetoric, Russia obviously can't afford a new Cold War. As the terrorist attack on Beslan in September showed, Russia's security is already in a perilous state, which is why Russia needs all the cooperation from the West it can get...
Michelle Malkin is asking her blog's readers to send a lump of coal to the mayor of Denver.
Issue at hand: A ban on the singing of Christmas carols.
Ed Haislmaier writes to tell us about a photo he saw online:
While I don't recall you ever posting pictures on your blog (as many other bloggers do), I was particularly struck by the composition and symbolism of this photo, which appears in today's Washington Post.I agree. There is another thing I like about it, too. The photo is evocative of photos taken of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin together at Yalta. Yet, in this one, Stalin has been replaced by a leader whose legacy will be the opposite of Stalin's. We are making progress.
Bush seems to echo the cheerful optimism and determination of his illustrious predecessors in yet another time of great trial and conflict, while the backdrop seems to unveil the ghostly presence of Roosevelt and Churchill beaming in approval at their successor.
I would say this is immediately a leading contender for any 'best news photo of the year' contest.
If you haven't, please click on the link. It is quite a photo. I'd post it here but I don't want to violate copyright laws, and it would probably take a while to obtain formal permission to publish it.
Addendum: I purchased the permission to reprint the photo, nice and legal. Here it is:
Michelle Malkin posts the horrifying story of an evil blot in Seattle who murdered his two daughters, and his relatives who wrote him a nice sweet obituary (I'm not being sarcastic -- they really did) containing a photo of the victims playing with their killer.
I won't try to recap what Michelle wrote, please see it for yourself. It is a really harsh post but it should be.
After you read Michelle, check out this job ad: "If you are interested in joining a dynamic team of highly capable professionals in the fields of energy analysis and software development, please send us your resume. We are a small company, with a great group of individuals, working and living in the exciting Seattle metropolitan area." It apparently was posted by the guy Michelle writes about, Stephen Byrne, the one who killed his two young daughters, Kelsey (11) and Hayley (9).
Evil hid behind the banal.
Treating child-killers with respect sickens me. I posted about a similar story in July 2003. It was a case of an anti-Bush "poet" (I use the term loosely, any comparison to someone whose work even a Bush-hater would like to read is purely coincidental) who on July 16, 2003 murdered her two-year-old son, Jehan Vazirani Komunyakaa, reportedly in part because no one appreciated her drivel and in part because her relationship with the guy she had been sleeping with (the dead boy's out-of-state father) wasn't working out. The Washington Post's coverage of the murder included such vomit as a quote from Jim Grimsley of Emory University saying of the toddler-killer: "This is a terrible loss for all of us at Emory, as well as the world of poetry" and a friend of the murderer, Denise King-Miller, saying the toddler-killer "was such a beautiful spirit. It's just a loss to the world." (It is tragic that particular loss didn't occur as a solitary event.)
There is only one way to deal with the memory of people who kill their children, and that is with as much derision, spite and vitriol as one can manage to produce. Maybe then at least one person who is thinking about aping one of these zeros will be deterred out of their own sheer selfish desire not to have their memory mocked.
(Please don't send me any e-mails defending any of these people who kill their children. That happened after I posted Did He Have a Dimple When He Smiled? last year about the Washington Post's coverage of the death of little Jehan Vazirani Komunyakaa. [Yes, really, I got e-mail complaining that I was too harsh on the killer.] The Post, by the way, redeemed itself somewhat. I had complained that the Post's initial story about the murder-suicide told us all about the killer mother, but nothing about the little boy. A later piece in the Post by Paula Span painted a much fuller picture of little Jehan, a little boy who loved music and apparently was quite wonderful.)
Little Jehan would have been four this month.
Tom Harris sent over this letter he and his wife had published in the Ottawa Citizen today:
On behalf of many of the ordinary residents of the nation's capital, we would like to welcome President George W. Bush to Canada.It is important for us to remember that America has friends like this in Canada and all over the world -- there even are some in France. Unfortuantely, one sometimes gets the impression that almost everyone living abroad hates us. This is not so. Only the stupid ones do. (Just kidding with that last sentence. Mostly.)
Many of us admire the way he has stood up to international terrorism and, while we may not agree with his actions on every front, we would like to reassure him that many, many Canadians are strongly supportive of the enduring alliance between our nations and feel nothing but goodwill towards his country and its fine citizens.
As my wife and I proclaimed in a sign we held up when President Ronald Reagan visited Ottawa in the 1980s, our two nations are indeed "Friends in freedom."
Sadly, because of the hundreds of protesters who are being bused to Ottawa from universities in Toronto and other locations to "unwelcome Bush" in "two days of mass protest and creative resistance" (to quote organizers), the media focus will undoubtedly be on the problems caused by an unrepresentative but very vocal few. Groups such as the Communist Party of Canada (who have booked their own bus to travel from Toronto to Ottawa to protest the visit) do not represent us or anyone we know.
Unfortunately, most ordinary Ottawa residents simply cannot afford the time away from their busy lives at work or at home to come out and demonstrate our support for the United States.
Mr. Bush should be assured that he has an enormous well of popular support in the silent majority of hardworking citizens in Canada and throughout the world.
Tom Harris and Laurie Lemoine
Norman at Espresso Sarcasm is posting a series on parenting advice.
Definitely lives up to the blog's name -- although telling kids that chicken nuggets are made from the Easter Bunny so they'll be willing to eat something else seems inspired. What did children eat before chicken nuggets were invented?
An animal rights activist in Australia says he wants to live like a pig:
An animal rights activist is seeking a piggery owner who will let him live in a pig stall in an attempt to bring attention to piggery conditions.Hahnheuser, the Melbourne Herald Sun article says, "was having difficulty finding a piggery that would agree to his challenge."
Ralph Hahnheuser, from Animal Liberation of South Australia, has challenged commercial piggeries to put him in a sow stall for three weeks...
Mr. Hahnheuser hoped living in a pen would draw attention to the plight of pigs but said it could have serious repercussions on his health and he could be hospitalised during the stunt.
"This is not something that should be done willy-nilly," he said...
Mr Hahnheuser is currently facing contamination of goods charges after he allegedly fed ham to a shipment of sheep bound for halal-conscious Muslim markets.
Almost 2,000 sheep had to be slaughtered and a shipment of 73,000 animals to Kuwait was delayed for two weeks following the discovery of ham in a sheep feedlot at Portland, in Victoria's south-west, last November.
That's no surprise. Maybe he should consider building one of his own.
Inspired by Julia Roberts, the Washington Post lists some truly wacky names celebrities have given their children, and then asks: "Isn't it hard enough being the child of a celebrity without having to endure additional commentary about one's unusual name? Hi, everyone, my name is... Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily?"
Eight months into President Vladimir Putin's second term, momentum for economic reform in Russia has all but halted as vested Kremlin interests fight for control of the nation's resources and purse strings, economists and analysts say.Read the entire story here.
"What's happening in Russia at the moment is an asset grab across the board," said UBS Brunswick economist Al Breach...
The reform of state-controlled Gazprom, now "dead in the water" according to the World Bank, as well as steps to rein in monopolies, are key to Russia's long-delayed entry to the World Trade Organisation...
"These guys ... don't believe in a free market. They don't believe in liberties..."
Alfa Bank analyst Chris Weafer said part of the government's strategy for growth is to take a chunk of available cash flows from the natural resource industries.
He said this would eventually hurt Russia's economic boom, which has seen annual growth rates in excess of eight per cent in the early months of 2004.
"Why bother with privatisation when the state can enjoy the benefits of ownership... We were all being naive, expecting reforms," Weafer said. "Now there is an air of Politburo to the place."
Or, if you are in a hurry, you can just read my thirty-word version of the Yukos saga: Yukos Oil was Russia's top blue-chip company. Then its CEO became known as a possible political rival to Putin. So Putin used the power of the state to crush it.