Click on WORD or PDF for full content
In a 900 word column Bret Stephens nails the Obama Afghan weakness.
… Wars are contests of wills. If our efforts in Afghanistan have an increasingly ghostly quality—visible to the naked eye but incapable of achieving effects in the physical world—it has more to do with a widespread perception that we just aren’t prepared to do what it takes to win than it does with the particulars of counterinsurgency strategy or its execution. Gen. Petraeus won in Iraq because George W. Bush had his back and the people of Iraq, friend as well as foe, knew it.
By contrast, the fact that we have been unable to secure the small city of Marja, much less take on the larger job of Kandahar, is because nobody—right down to the village folk whom we are so sedulously courting with good deeds and restrictive rules of engagement—believes that Barack Obama believes in his own war. The vacuum in credibility begets the vacuum in power.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that Pakistan is seeking to expand its influence in Afghanistan. “Coupled with their strategic interests,” noted the Times, “the Pakistanis say they have chosen this juncture to open talks with [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai because, even before the controversy with Gen. McChrystal, they sensed uncertainty—’a lack of fire in the belly,’ said one Pakistani—within the Obama administration over the Afghan fight.” …
The Streetwise Professor discusses some of the numerous problems with the administration’s end run around the Constitution in order to get their hands on the BP oil spill slush fund.
…Feinberg will, like some imperial vizier, decide which state laws apply and which do not:
Overcoming differences in state laws will be another challenge, and Mr Feinberg’s team is now going through state laws to check for inconsistencies.
Although their initial inspection showed that the laws were “sufficiently similar”, the lawyer is also looking at creative ways to deal with any problems.
In this federal system, there is a demarcation between state law and federal law. Each state has its own laws, duly passed by its legislature, its own courts for interpreting these laws and making judgments under it, and its own executive, for enforcing them. …
…Where does Ken Feinberg, and the Obama administration, get the power to turn this system completely on its head? Under what Constitutional theory does an unaccountable “official” (I use the quotes because the “position” he holds does not appear to have any legal sanction whatsoever) get the power to disregard some state laws to award claims that presumably have a legal basis in these same state laws? Since when does a majority of state laws trump the laws of the remainder? I mean, this is an absolutely bizarre legal doctrine. …
In Forbes, John Tamny calls politicians on their hypocrisy.
…Responding to Hayward’s testimony on the oil spill, Congressman Henry Waxman complained to the much maligned CEO that “You’re not taking responsibility, you’re just kicking the can down the road and acting like you have nothing to do with [BP]. I find that irresponsible.” Politicians have never been known for being self aware.
Indeed, for a congressman from either party to suggest someone is kicking the can down the road is quite something. From deficits, to corporate bailouts, to unfunded future liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare, Congress is the unchallenged expert when it comes to irresponsibly kicking problems of its own making down the road. Waxman et al love to hold others responsible for their errors, but when the prudent call them on their own lack of accountability, they simply blame the rich for not handing over even more of their honest earnings to Washington.
Given the limiting nature of the Constitution when it comes to the activities of the federal government, the simple answer to Washington’s situational worship of accountability is that the political class should keep quiet altogether about matters big and small in the private sector. …
In the Financial Times, Clive Crook has an unusual view of the G20 summit results.
…Germany is being called a bad global citizen for tightening fiscal policy despite its external surplus and unstressed borrowing capacity. The criticism is fair. But forget the debilitating implications for Europe and the world: unforced austerity is bad for Germany (though it might be good politics for Angela Merkel). Britain’s new government has a much more serious public debt problem but its fiscal plans – which gave rise to much boasting in Toronto – also look needlessly severe.
Europe as a whole seems intent on one-size-fits-all austerity, despite limping output and very low inflation. Some countries have no choice but to curb their borrowing immediately. All should make a credible commitment to fiscal consolidation in the medium term: deficit hawks are right that if you wait until the bond market hammer comes down, you have waited too long. But with economies still so weak – remember Japan – this should not dictate a universal headlong rush to fiscal retrenchment.
Under these circumstances one could forgive the US for lecturing others on fiscal policy, were it not for the fact that (a) poor US financial regulation and inattentive monetary policy caused the crisis in the first place, and (b) its own fiscal policy is a shambles. President Barack Obama is telling other countries to maintain fiscal stimulus even as his own fades and the US Congress is denying his modest requests for extra spending. For this, Mr Obama himself is mostly to blame.
He and his allies in Congress bungled last year’s stimulus. A big package was needed, and was duly delivered. But its design was poor: too much spending on shovel-ready projects that weren’t; too little in tax cuts. It was seriously oversold, leaving voters sceptical that more stimulus would do any good. Worst of all, with public debt through the roof, the administration has failed to give the smallest sign of its exit strategy. Last week its budget director, Peter Orszag, disclosed his own. He said he was quitting; colleagues said (though he denied) that he was frustrated by White House indecision over medium-term fiscal control.
The complaint after Toronto is that nations are concentrating on their own economies and ignoring global welfare. So far as taxes and spending go, my reaction is: if only. …
In the NY Post, Nicole Gelinas comments on the alarming incentives found in the finance reform bill.
…The compromises hammered out by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and others don’t address their bill’s fatal flaws — starting with the bill’s disastrous effort to end taxpayer bailouts.
The obvious — and correct — way to end Wall Street rescues is to let a failed financial firm go bankrupt. That is, the people who invested in a failed company — including bondholders, people owed money on derivatives and other lenders — should take the losses.
Instead, Congress would “end” bailouts by directing the feds to rescue the creditors to any failed “too big to fail” financial company. Later, the feds would make the failed firm’s competitors pay the cost. …
There are many reasons to be grateful that we don’t live in Europe. In the Daily Mail, UK, Christopher Leake adds another reason to the list. The EU doesn’t like eggs sold in dozen packages. They think weight is better because people are too stupid to figure out small, medium, etc..
…Last night, an FSA spokeswoman said: ‘This proposal would disallow selling by numbers. Retailers would not be allowed to put “Six eggs” on the front of the box. If it was a bag of rolls, it would say “500g” instead of six rolls.
‘It is important that information is provided in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to consumers. This issue is still being considered by EU member states and it will be some time before the regulation is finalised.’
The move could cost retailers millions of pounds because of changes they will have to make to packaging and labelling, as well as the extra burden of weighing each box of food before it is put on sale.
The cost is likely to be passed on to shoppers through higher grocery bills. …
Just when you thought the environmentalists were going to save us from ourselves, Futurity.org reports on dangerous levels of bacteria in reusable grocery bags.
Researchers randomly tested bags carried by shoppers in Tucson, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and found bacteria levels significant enough to cause a wide range of serious health problems and even death.
They are a particular danger for young children, who are especially vulnerable to food-borne illnesses, says Charles Gerba, a University of Arizona professor and coauthor of the study.
The study also found consumers were almost completely unaware of the need to regularly wash their bags. …