Social Media
National Center Presents
Category Archives

The official blog of the National Center for Public Policy Research, covering news, current events and public policy from a conservative, free-market and pro-Constitution perspective.

20 F Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 507-6398
Fax (301) 498-1301

Monthly Archives
Twitter feeds

Tryanny Has No Dress Code

Ed Haislmaier recommends this Mark Steyn piece on the "Prince Harry as a Nazi" flap.


Social Security Employees Oppose Answering Questions According to Employer's Instructions

I was going to write a post about the whining labor union representing employees of the Social Security Administration, but Dick McDonald did it first.

Dick is way less P.C. than I am, but he hits the nail on the head.

By the way, the White House says the entire kerfluffle is fake -- which is what most sane observers already thought. The union's big whine was that Social Security Administration employees might be asked questions by the public, and be expected to answer them according to their employer's point of view.

There is a way to avoid that, if it actually were happening: Quit. Nobody elected these people. Besides, anyone who is not comfortable working for a variety of presidential administrations should not seek to spend their career as a federal government employee. Sometimes these folks answer to Democrats; other times, to Republicans. Live with it or move on.


Daly Thoughts Returns

After a post-election break, Gerry returns.

We missed you!


Inaugural Costs: Transferring Wealth, Not Wasting It

Though I am oversimplifying in the service of brevity, there is more truth than fiction in the notion that money spent on inaugural festivities represents a transfer of wealth from big corporations and individuals of decent income to men and women who work for caterers, restaurants, hotels, the D.C. convention center, security firms, limousine services and printers, or who are taxi drivers or police officers on overtime.

What do critics of inaugural spending cited by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and others have against working people earning a decent living?

Besides, those who can't stand wealth transfers within the private sector could cheer the fact that the government is taking a nice slice of the private money being spent on the aforementioned services though sales and income taxes.


Retirement Security Crisis: Real and Bigger Than Just Social Security

This stark essay by Robert Samuelson in the January 14 Washington Post goes much further than does the White House in saying that our federal senior citizen entitlement programs need reform. Now.

Contrasting sharply with liberals who claim entitlement programs are not in crisis and claim the Administration is peddling falsehoods, Samuelson says the crisis is real. He does not spare President Bush, however, saying the President's reform effort "betrays a lack of seriousness that promises failure."

Some excerpts from Samuelson's piece:

The nation's problem is not Social Security. It is all federal programs for retirees, of which Social Security is a shrinking part...

Our national government is increasingly a transfer mechanism from younger workers (i.e. taxpayers) to older retirees. In fiscal 2004 Social Security ($488 billion), Medicare ($300 billion) and Medicaid ($176 billion) represented 42 percent of federal outlays. Excluding spending that doesn't go to the elderly, the Congressional Budget Office crudely estimates that these programs pay an average of almost $17,800 to each American 65 and over. By 2030 the number of elderly is projected to double; the costs will skyrocket...

Look at the numbers. From 2004 to 2030, the combined spending on Social Security and Medicare is expected to rise from 7 percent of national income (gross domestic product) to 13 percent. Two-thirds of the increase occurs in Medicare. To add perspective: The increases in Social Security and Medicare represent almost a third of today's budget, which is 20 percent of GDP. Covering promised benefits would ultimately require a tax increase of about 30 percent...

The central budget issue of our time is how much younger taxpayers should be forced to support older retirees -- and both political parties and the public refuse to face it. What's fair to workers and retirees? How much of a tax increase (never mind budget deficits) could the economy stand before growth suffered badly? How much do today's programs provide a safety net for the dependent elderly, and how much do they subsidize the leisure of the fit or well-to-do? (About 15 percent of elderly households have incomes exceeding $75,000.) How long should people work?

We need a new generational compact to reflect new realities...

...The debate we need involves generational responsibility and obligation. Anyone who examines the outlook must conclude that, even allowing for uncertainties, both Social Security and Medicare benefits will have to be cut. We can either make future cuts now, with warnings to beneficiaries, or we can wait for budgetary pressures to force abrupt cuts later, with little warning...
To avoid violating copyright law, I had to leave a lot out, including Samuelson's more detailed criticisms of both Democrats and the White House.

I encourage anyone with a stake in the Social Security and Medicare debate (i.e., all Americans not on their deathbed) to read the whole thing here.


what if?: Payola Confessions

Peg at what if? has a shocking confession about what she would do for a $1,000 payoff.

Rather than wonder what a $240,000 contract would get me, I'm off to look for the baby pictures she says she posted -- wherever they are.

(I'm a sucker for baby pictures.)


Dana Dillon: Tsunamis Do Not Trump Sovereignty

The Heritage Foundation has a calm perspective on the Indonesian government in light of recent events related to tsunami relief efforts.


Make Love, Not War

The lefties must love this one.


Prince Harry: German Ancestry Does Not Make Him a Nazi Sympathizer

I noted a bit of unintentional irony in this New York Times article about Prince Harry wearing a swastika.

On the one hand, the piece notes some observers lamenting the possibility that history is not being properly taught to young people:

...the debate provoked some introspection about whether the memory of the death camps had endured across the generations.

In Jerusalem, Robert Rozett, the director of the library at Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, said the photographs of Harry wearing a swastika showed that "the lessons of the Holocaust have not really entered deeply within his understanding and consciousness."
On the other hand, it is reasonably clear that the author of the Times piece has scant familiarity with recent British history:
As The Evening Standard, among other newspapers, noted on Thursday, the royal family had an ambiguous relationship with Germany and the Nazis. The House of Windsor was formed in 1917 when the royal family changed its name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha, a name it acquired with the marriage in 1840 of Queen Victoria and Albert of Saxe-Coburg, which was then a duchy in central Germany.

In the 1930's, moreover, some members were widely seen as openly sympathetic to the Nazis. In one iconic photograph, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, smiling broadly, were seen greeting Hitler.
If ever two paragraphs in a newspaper looked like padding in an essay being turned in for a high school history assignment, this is it.

Does the Times really need to quote the contemporary British press to know basic facts about British history? Is the ancestry of Queen Victoria's prince consort of more significance than Queen Victoria's own German ancestry (if so, a rare bout of overt sexism in the Times), or has the Times not heard of Victoria's own House of Hanover (Germany)? (If so, the ignorance of the House of Hanover explains why the Times often doesn't quite seem to understand the meaning of the Declaration of Independence as well.) And is the relationship between the Duke of Windsor and Hitler/top Nazis really best described by the fact that there exist photos of them cheerful together? One can say the same about Chamberlain, and Stalin. And probably some dufus from the New York Times, since the Times spent the 1930s parroting the Stalin line, and Stalin and Hitler carved up Poland together.

Someone (me, I guess) should tell the Times how misleading it is to say of the Windsors: "In the 1930's, moreover, some members were widely seen as openly sympathetic to the Nazis." Yes, the Duke and Duchess and Windsor were, but as a result, they were exiled in the Bahamas by his brother, King George VI, and Prime Minister Churchill during World War II. (The weather in the Bahamas might be nice, but the exile was a pointed insult, inasmuch as it was a location as far away from the action as the British government could find.) To tar the present House of Windsor with the sins of relatives they and their direct ancestors shunned because of those sins is hardly fair. Yet, the Times offers readers this line as if his great-grandfather's brother's political views tell us something about the thoughts of 20-year-old Prince Harry.

The House of Windsor is no more pro-Nazi than were German-Americans who fought in the U.S. Army during World War II. The patriotism of those men was not "ambiguous." Having German ancestry does not make one think -- even a tiny little bit -- favorably toward the Nazis, and Prince Harry's German ancestry, while more extensive than perhaps the Times realizes, is irrelevant in this case.

Jan132005 Free the Tomatoes

I don't see why one need become a libertarian to be outraged by this. As a conservative, I certainly am.

Professor Bainbridge is right on the money with this one.

If you like, or even buy, tomatoes, read the Professor's post about how Florida farmers are conspiring to keep us from having the opportunity to buy tasty tomatoes in our local supermarkets.


Heritage Weblog: Social Security Polls

The Heritage Foundation's Heritage Policy Weblog has posted results of several recent polls on Social Security reform, and provides an analysis that, Heritage says, "illustrate(s) that how pollsters ask questions about reform can make a big difference."

Among other results they cite, 82 percent of Americans, according to Gallup, say it is "very important" or "extremely important" for "Congress and the President to deal with Social Security in the next year."

Many of the polls reviewed examine public opinion toward private retirement accounts/partial privatization of Social Security.


Iraq: Stay Determined

Joe Roche has a message for anyone gloomy about election prospects in Iraq:

Our country is fortunate to have the orderly and time-honored traditions of elections and transfers of power. These are the most important events in democracy.

I spent fifteen months in Baghdad, Iraq, deployed as a soldier in the U.S. Army. My fellow soldiers all knew that the enemies we faced there could never defeat us militarily in Iraq. It was clear to us, therefore, that what they were really aiming at was to terrorize freedom-loving Iraqis and their supporters worldwide. We need to be careful to protect from letting our political freedom become a license for self-inflicted injury to be exploited by our enemies abroad.

Iraq today is a place where the Arab people are fighting for the very future and survival of their civilization. Issues of freedom and democracy have long been alien concepts, talked of only to justify the repression of unpopular causes and people. We have planted the roots of real freedom and democracy there and this is causing a huge region-wide transformation to occur. We should be proud and remain committed to seeing its success.

My unit, the 16th Engineer Battalion of the 1st Armored Division, had a big role in liberating and empowering the people of Baghdad. When we arrived, it was full of chaos and anarchy. Saddam's regime had been such a total tyranny that when it was removed, everything broke down. We rolled in to bring order.

We did this by building up much of Baghdad in ways that benefit the people for their future. This was no easy task. Often our missions were conducted in dangerous environments right in the face of terrorism and insurgency and frequent ambushes. Nonetheless, we were relentless in our projects, always facing down the enemies of freedom with our resolve and determination. Yes, we were afraid, but we knew that freedom is not free, and that this is a cause worth fighting for.

The Arab people appreciated this greatly. Not only did we have Baghdadis emboldened and empowered by what we did, but Arabs from other parts of the region came to help and to learn.

My battalion cleared a massive amount of weaponry left by Saddam's forces that included tens of thousands of explosives spread over several hundred sights in Baghdad and among hundreds of military vehicles. We completed several dozen major infrastructure projects that covered countless miles of roads, 224 neighborhood projects, and also extensive sanitation and irrigation enterprises. The most important were the major power stations such as Taji and Al Mansour, including over two-dozen sub-stations scattered throughout the city. Not only did we restore them, but we also improved them.

Many people make the mistake of calling this "rebuilding.” For the vast majority of the people, this was all new stuff that they had never enjoyed. For example, near the base that my unit was operating from there was a vast trash waste sight. It was heavily populated, and some of the people had never left it their whole lives. One boy I met there was 17.

We went on to repair and build 28 primary and secondary schools, as well as 67 projects to improve Baghdad University and Mustansariyah University, which included seven colleges, dormitories and building many internet and computer labs. We also filled them full with books from all of the seven liberal arts that distinguish American colleges.

To sustain these missions, my battalion had to conduct constant missions that involved clearing 96 roadside bombs and confronting dangerous elements, including conducting raids on enemy locations. It was all worth it.

Take note that the primary targets of all the terrorism and violence in Iraq are the Iraqi people and Arabs from Iraq's neighbors. Even the top anti-US and anti-United Nations terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before bombing the UN building in 2003, first hit the Jordanian Embassy. He did this because he knows that the biggest enemy he faces is not the US or the UN, but other Arabs benefiting and learning from what we have brought to Baghdad.

The Iraqi people are an extremely traumatized people. They suffered terribly from the 8-year Iran-Iraq War, and had to survive under the tyranny of Saddam. That is all they knew for much of their lives, and now suddenly they have this new freedom.

They are flocking to the information superhighway of radios, TV and internet to learn about the world they never knew before we came, and they are seeking to empower themselves as no Arab regime has allowed it's people to do as of yet. This is a very inspiring time. As such, it is also the most serious and threatening challenge to those who would keep the Arab people under tyrants and who would deprive Arab civilization of its full potential.

I remember the missions we conducted to restore and improve the Museum of Natural History in Baghdad. Baghdadis poured out to thank us and support us. All the time, however, from just thousands of enemies hell-bent to reverse these virtues for the 6 million people of Baghdad, we faced attacks. Well, we did our mission and now the millions who support us are benefiting.

This is no easy job, and the enemies we face have some advantages over us. That is why my battalion secured and turned over many major government buildings, hotels and banks to the new leaders of Iraq, and built 13 police stations in some of the most dangerous areas of Baghdad, such as in Sadr City.

When foreign jihadists and regime-holdovers ignited uprisings, my battalion along with my whole division was extended three more months after a year of service in Baghdad. We went right into the most dangerous areas of Baghdad, and down to Karbala and Najaf, to hold police stations, government buildings and other critical sights. It was very difficult facing a second hot summer in Iraq, and our loved ones back home grieved, but we did it and, over time, our enemies fell back because of our resolve.

The Iraqis are now in the front line in defending and advancing their new freedoms. The elections are just a step, but a giant step for Iraqis and the Arab world. Women are becoming empowered as never before, while minority groups all over the Arab world are finally getting a chance to make their cause for respect and liberation felt. Religious freedom and intellectual freedom are putting up a great struggle to succeed against some of the most vile and desperate forms of terrorist actions.

These are noble causes that we must support. They are opposed by all those elements in the Arab world that feel threatened by freedom and democracy. If we value our democracy and our own political freedom, however, we must not betray the Iraqi people, and from them the Arab people as a whole, by letting down on our commitment to see them succeed. Don't lose your confidence in America's mission in Iraq, and don't let the enemies of freedom deny Iraqis the dignity and respect that is a part of democracy.

As a soldier who saw the sacrifice and cost of this conflict with my own eyes, I am telling you it is a noble cause and one in which we should be supremely proud. Stay determined to see it through.


SinclairAction: Intransigent, But Why?

While preparing for a talk radio interview about the Staples - Sinclair - Media Matters issue, husband David noticed that the liberal activist group SinclairAction still has this graphic up on its website:

This seems at odds with the facts.

I commented about this graphic on January 8. To my mind, it should not have been up then, either, but one always has to allow some time for website changes. Four more days have passed, though, so we must assume the group means to keep insisting that Staples is boycotting Sinclair. Given Staples' insistence that this is not so, does SinclairAction's action reflect access to information to which we are not privy, or wishful thinking on its part?

Meanwhile. I continue to receive e-mails from Sinclair supporters who are waiting to see Staples advertise once again on Sinclair news broadcasts, such as this one:

Thank you for the Staples update.

Personally, I do not know which Staples person's version of this fiasco to believe. Until I am convinced that Staples is not acting politically against Sinclair Broadcasting, my purchase of a computer system from Staples will be held up and I'll shop elsewhere, likely at Reliable, for office products. This is admittedly not going to harm Staples' bottom line, as I'm a small business owner/operator. But I will sleep better knowing I am standing up for freedom of speech.

Thanks, again, for your efforts.

Harold M. Molter

Auburn, MI


Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Letter from a Russian prison

Mikhail Khodorkovsky writes from a Russian prison, as published by the International Herald Tribune:

The destruction of Yukos is almost done. I did everything I could to prevent the authorities’ personal animosity toward me from harming minority shareholders, ordinary employees and the country as a whole.

Half a year ago I offered to surrender my shares to satisfy the claims against the company. However, another way was chosen - that of a selective application of the laws, of retroactively imposing new legal standards and interpretations, of a straightforward and public destruction of the business community’s confidence in arbitration courts and any authority in general.

The coordination and utter shamelessness of the measures taken by tax, law-enforcement and judicial organs and by companies linked to the government, as well as the unmitigated pressures put on managers and employees of the company whose only crime was that they once worked under Khodorkovsky, leave no doubt that the whole process was concocted…

It has become clear that not only political interests are involved, but others as well, since the methods used harm both the reputation of the authorities and the national economy. But those who concocted this affair don’t seem to care about such trifles.

The issue today is not the fate of Yukos. It is probably impossible to save the company. The question is what lessons will the country and society draw from the Yukos case, whose finale has become the most senseless and destructive event for the national economy in all the time President Vladimir Putin has been in office…

Yes, over the past year, the $15 billion fortune of which Forbes wrote has almost reached zero, and it will soon become absolute zero. But I understood that this would happen, and I asked only that the company and its minority shareholders not be touched, since I felt a direct responsibility before the 150,000 Yukos employees, the 500,000 members of their families and the 30 million residents of cities and towns who depend on the smooth and uninterrupted operation of Yukos enterprises…

In 1995, when I and my team took over Yukos, the company was losing money, it had not paid wages for six months, and it was $3 billion in arrears on debt payments. Yukos was operating in only nine regions of Russia, extracting 40 million tons of oil a year, and the production was constantly falling.

By 2003, there were already Yukos operations in 50 Russian regions, annual oil production amounted to 80 million tons and was growing. Yukos was paying high and regular wages: up to 7,000 rubles a month in European Russia and up to 30,000 rubles in Siberia. The company was the second largest taxpayer in the country (after Gazprom), accounting for almost 5 percent of the federal budget.

I don’t want to go in detail into what amazing imagination it took to invent the taxes that Yukos purportedly owes - according to experts at the Ministry of Taxation, Yukos should have paid more in taxes than it received in revenues. This will someday be cited as a bad joke in textbooks on taxation law, since they proved that oil production in Russia is not profitable. Bureaucrats will stop at nothing to redistribute property…

This is, indeed, the only possible and correct choice - the choice of freedom.

I have great pity for those authorities who sincerely believe that they are doing a good thing for the country, for the people. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Further down this road they will realize that repressive methods and the forced redistribution of wealth are not compatible with modern economic development. And they will not be able to limit this assault to Khodorkovsky, Yukos or the oligarchs - their victims will be many, including those who created this machinery….



AP Rewrites History

The AP Begins a report today saying:

The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday...
So subtle, so wrong, and so damaging.

The war was never only about WMDs and the phrase "without any evidence" is incorrect.


Pittsburgh Steelers Resource

As the Pittsburgh Steelers continue their all-but-inevitable acquistion of the Vince Lombardi Trophy, folks might find it handy to have this list of Pittsburgh-area blogs.

Meanwhile, kudos to Pittsburgh's rookie quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, who announced Tuesday he will donate his first NFL playoff paycheck (January 15, Pittsburgh Steelers vs. New York Jets) to the tsunami relief effort.

Some of you may not be rooting for the Steelers (rumor has it), but if you think about it, I have every confidence you will see the error of your ways.

Addendum (Jan. 15; 9 PM): Whew!

Addendum 2 (Jan. 23; 11 PM): Ouch.


Everything I Know Is Wrong in Philadelphia Inquirer

Congratulations to Sean at Everything I Know Is Wrong for being cited by the Philadelphia Inquirer as a resource on global warming.

Despite all the snow at the top of his blog, Sean has had some mighty good posts on global warming.


France: Hopeless Even When It Means Well

If the official French attitude toward the United States and the American military has frustrated you, you will very much appreciate this post on Bloggledygook.

Appreciate, that is, in a sad and perhaps pitiful kind of way. (It would be much nicer to appreciate competence and brilliance.)

If you like the Bloggledygook post, be sure to read the post Bloggledygook is writing about, for more details.


Peter Roff: Torture and Gonzales

Peter Roff of UPI has a standout opinion column out tonight on torture and Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales. It begins:

"Your college-age junior comes to you with plans to spend mid-winter break in Florida rather than come home. Against your better judgment but recognizing that all children eventually grow up and leave the nest, you assent and, grudgingly, even help out with some spending money.

With a kiss on the forehead, you see them off at the airport, but not before extracting a promise of a phone call as soon as the plane lands in south Florida. Traffic being what it is, the drive back from the airport take several hours. Drained, you can do little more than flop down in front of the television -- just in time to see a breaking news bulletin explaining that your child's plane was blown out of the sky over the Gulf of Mexico by what witnesses said looked to be a surface-to-air missile fired from a ship.

There are no survivors.

The subsequent investigation reveals terror-war detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, planned the attack. Had effective methods of interrogation been available to U.S. personnel, it could have been uncovered and prevented.

Now, do complaints that Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales might have placed the safety and security of U.S. citizens over the interests of captured detainees still bother you? Or are you grateful that he did?"
Read the whole thing here.

Addendum:: A e-mail I received about this post today reads:
Came across Amy Ridenour's endorsement of Peter Roff's argument that torture ought to be accepted based on a hypothetical attack conducted by Gitmo

prisoners, who in the fantasy would have given up their plan if they'd been tortured some more.

The fictional character could just has easily been killed by a drunk driver, and following the logic of this piece, Americans should reinstate prohibition.

Conservatives would hardly accept this kind of reasoning regarding gun control, yet it makes perfect sense to them as a justification for torture.

It's incredibly lazy thinking.

Chris Burgoyne
Reply: If you knew someone was about to get drunk, get in a car and kill someone, would you stop him? I would. Maybe Mr./Ms. Burgoyne would not? (Actually, he/she probably would.)

The gun control analogy is too far afield to apply. Furthermore, Mr. /Ms. Burgoyne ignores everything Peter Roff wrote about the word "torture" being "defined up."

But thanks for writing anyway.


Staples - Sinclair - Media Matters: Who's on First?

A very brief update on our coverage of Staples - Sinclair - Media Matters...

This article on the Staples affair ends on a funny note:

...As for how the issue will eventually be settled between Staples - which now says it will advertise during Sinclair's newscasts - and Media Matters, [Media Matters spokesman Sally] Aman is unsure.

"Frankly, I'm confused myself," she said.
(Maybe it would be less confusing if Media Matters would name names. Who are the Staples "officials" Media Matters says approved the original Media Matters press release making the claims about Staples that got all this started?)

Meanwhile, I received the following in my e-mail box Monday:
I called my Staples representative to inform him I was firing Staples. He gave me their 1-800 number for the office of the President. I called, their story was that they were not cancelling "all of their advertising on Sinclair" just on I think the news shows. I told her that had to be politically motivated and I would vote with my feet. I also advised her that I feel a larger share of their customer base would be against their move than would favor it. In my company, which I own, I have informed my people that I will not pay to Staples nor reimburse for receipts from Staples.

Perhaps Staples will more clearly understand the freedom of speech issue, and that it has to work on all sides of an issue.

I would have to hear Sinclair come out and declare that Staples is fully advertising as before this issue prior to any change in my position.


Winston Crawford
So the confusion continues. I suggest we just wait and see. Staples will either advertise on Sinclair's news broadcasts this year, or it won't.

By now, Staples knows we all are watching.