ShareThis Page


| Sunday, Sept. 19, 2010

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday. President Obama heralded it as "an important step forward that will advance our national security." Vice President Biden said it "will protect our security and make the world a safer place."

Those are misleading and reckless statements given what the treaty actually does, particularly in hamstringing U.S. missile defense capabilities and leaving the Russians with a decided nuclear weapons advantage in their immediate tactical theater.

New START weakens our security and that of the world. And it's yet another in a long line of examples of the Obama administration's bowing foreign policy of deferentialism. The full Senate should reject this nonstarter. ...

The small-business bill that passed the Senate last week (and is expected to sail through the House) is another piece of troubling statist pap from an administration that knows little else. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau points to the measure's "small business lending fund," in particular.

It authorizes the federal government to buy $30 billion in preferred bank stock "in return for the banks making politically correct loans with an emphasis on 'linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach,'" he said in a written statement.

"Such an approach will not benefit innovative small firms but most likely firms who toe the government line on investing in renewable energy and anything else the government deems 'appropriate,'" Mr. Berlau adds.

Worse, says the director of the institute's Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, it "follows the same politically directed investing approach as laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that were a big factor in the mortgage crisis."

As "progressives" are wont to cipher, failure multiplied by failure surely must equal success somewhere, sometime. ...

Dick Thornburgh isn't just drinking the same redistributionist Kool-Aid; he's taken a rocket ship to Planet Fantasy.

The former Republican Pennsylvania governor and U.S. attorney general says all of the Bush-era tax cuts should be allowed to expire at year's end and the proceeds should be given to the states in the form of block grants. The money would have to be used for science- and technology-driven development projects, he said last week in a Pittsburgh panel discussion, pandering to an industry group that advocates for such companies.

"I would much prefer, rather than having those tax cuts expire and going into the general maw in Washington and be quickly devoured, having them come directly to state governments (and) begin to take up the slack in our economy."

So, divert it to the maws of the states and encourage even more abuse by the political-industrial complex• That's nuts.

Or as one wag with whom we regularly converse put it, "Pouring huge amounts into science and technology projects chosen by states ... would be largely wasted on dumb ideas selected more for political reasons than economic or scientific relevance."

Hey, maybe President Obama will name Mr. Thornburgh his "industrial policy czar," eh• ...

The propagandists at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. are at it again.

When the accuracy of the phrase "global warming" failed scientific muster, the Armageddon Alarmists switched to "climate change." (They were hedging their bets so they eventually could warn of the dangers of a cooling planet.)

But that phrase apparently isn't scary enough for the White House. Administration science adviser John Holdren now is pushing some new nomenclature -- "global climate disruption."

Be afraid. Be very afraid. "Global warming" is a "dangerous misnomer," Mr. Holdren said this month in Oslo.

Why, yes it is -- especially when the scientific evidence suggests the Earth has entered a cooling phase.

Said GOP strategist Pete Snyder to Fox News: Are climate cluckers "going to change the name of weathermen to 'disruption analysts'"• ...

A new Penn State study on the effects of an "extraction" or "severance" tax on Pennsylvania's emerging Marcellus shale industry suggests that any deleterious economic effects of raising production costs would be "more than offset" by the spending of state and local governments that receive tax proceeds.

First, how twisted it is to think that government spending somehow is a more efficient allocation of resources than private spending. Second, so much for the ruse of some that the tax will be collected and "trusted" to pay for pollution mitigation (if there is anything to be mitigated, that is). ...

Campaigning for Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak in Philadelphia last week, Vice President Joe Biden predicted his party will retain control of Congress in the fall elections because the public doesn't want to go back to the "Ponzi scheme masquerading as a vision that was the Republicans' economic policy," reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Talk about Freudian transference. Can you say "Social Security," class• ...

The tea party movement continues to take it on the chin from liberals, "progressives," garden-variety statists and pecan-variety socialists who just can't seem to believe that so many Americans really are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

Locally, a Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler columnist likened members of the uprising to "people who would wear propellers on their three-sided hats." Nationally, a New York Times editorial characterized the disaffection as "the growling face of a new fringe in American politics."

Can you imagine how such galoots for gangrene government would have commented on the first American Revolution• Egads.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.