Click on WORD or PDF below for full content
David Warren sees off George W. Bush.
… After eight years of him, I would say, that of all the U.S. presidents in my life (from Eisenhower forward), Mr. Bush has been the most impressive, except Reagan. This is mostly a judgment on his foreign policy, in which — instant history requires clichés — he has taken various bulls by their horns, and has not been flipped by them.
I think it will be seen more clearly, as hindsight develops, that the stand he took in Afghanistan, then Iraq, prevented the exponential growth of Islamism. Ditto: his refusal to be horse-whipped by international public opinion very far along the ridiculous “roadmap to peace” between Israel and her fanatic adversaries. His confrontational attitudes toward other rogue regimes held the line — against Libya, Syria, North Korea, and even Iran. We would be in a far worse position if such regimes had been persuaded that America really was a “paper tiger.”
Mr. Bush, as the saying goes, “kept America safe,” and in so doing, defended universal Western interests. We are all indebted not only to him, but to the American taxpayer, and American soldiers, for missions to which we did not contribute adequately. Forward positions were taken and maintained. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama will give all these positions away. …
Telegraph, UK Op-Ed on Bush as president.
The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. “We’re setting up a debate,” she said sweetly, “and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?”
“I think he’s a good president,” I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush’s legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush’s presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this. …
According to Harvard prof Ruth Wisse, Bush rid the world of one dictator, while Clinton installed one.
As President George W. Bush prepares to leave office amid a media chorus of reproach and derision, there is at least one comparison with his predecessor that speaks greatly in his favor. Mr. Bush removed the most ruthless dictator of his day, Saddam Hussein, thereby offering Iraqi citizens the possibility of self-rule. Bill Clinton’s analogous achievement in the Middle East was to help install Yasser Arafat, the greatest terrorist of his day, as head of a proto-Palestinian state.
This is not how these events are generally perceived. The image that still looms in the public mind is that of President Clinton, peacemaker, standing between Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in the Rose Garden on Sept. 13, 1993. With the best intentions, Mr. Clinton had worked hard for this peace agreement and would continue to strive for its success, hosting the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the White House more than any other foreign leader.
But the “peace process” almost immediately reversed its stated expectations. …
Walter Williams has a point about regulation.
… The Federal Register, which lists new regulations, annually averaged 72,844 pages between 1977 and 1980. During the Reagan years, the average fell to 54,335. During the Bush I years, they rose to 59,527, to 71,590 during the Clinton years and rose to a record of 75,526 during the Bush II years. Employees in government regulatory agencies grew from 146,139 in 1980 to 238,351 in 2007, a 63 percent increase. In the banking and finance industries, regulatory spending between 1980 and 2007 almost tripled, rising from $725 million to $2.07 billion. So here’s my question: What are we to make of congressmen, talking heads and news media people who tell us the financial meltdown is a result of deregulation and free markets? Are they ignorant, stupid or venal? …
Forbes Op-Ed says the worst of the recession is over.
… Meanwhile, despite the fear (some of which is stoked by political salesmanship) that the U.S. faces the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, initial claims for unemployment insurance have fallen dramatically, from 589,000 the week before Christmas to 467,000 in New Year’s week. If initial claims come in for last week at the consensus-expected 501,000, the four-week moving average would be down to 512,000, the lowest since November.
These figures signal that the most intense period of the recession is behind us, not in front of us. Any “stimulus” applied by government has less to do with creating the recovery than letting politicians take credit when the recovery happens.
Same thoughts from Econ department at Stanford. A little too techie here, but worth a look.
A key source of the today’s economic weakness is uncertainty that led firms to postpone investment and hiring decisions. This column, by the authors whose model forecast the recession as far back as June 2008, report that the key measures of uncertainty have dropped so rapidly that they believe growth will resume by mid-2009. …
James Taranto on Obama’s decision to make a decision about closing Gitmo.
… Wow, on his very first day in office Obama is going to issue a directive starting the process of deciding what to do. That’s the kind of bold leadership America has been hankering for, lo these eight awful years!
The AP reports that “also expected is an executive order about certain interrogation methods, but details were not immediately available Monday.” Details also were not immediately available Sunday, when, Obama appeared on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” The Chicago Sun-Times has a transcript: …
Taranto also posts on Geithner’s tax problems.
… Did Geithner have an incompetent accountant? Maybe. A Senate Finance Committee statement reports that he prepared his own returns for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005.
We’re tempted to say America needs a Treasury secretary who is smart enough to figure out his own taxes. But such a cheap shot would be beneath us. Instead, we are going to make a serious point:
America needs a tax code simple enough for the Treasury secretary to figure out.
And WSJ Editors on the subject.
Washington is abuzz over Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner’s $34,000 self-employment tax “mistake.” The brouhaha has prompted a second delay for Mr. Geithner’s confirmation hearing, which was originally scheduled for Friday but will now be put off until after the inauguration.
When he does appear, Senators will want to know how a reputed financial wizard could have overlooked his Self-Employment Tax liability for four years. All the more so because he had signed a document from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, certifying “that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments.” Democrats are saying this is no big deal, but if that’s true then perhaps they should consider applying their tax absolution a little more broadly. …
John Stossel writes on the false sense of security provided by regulation.
… But Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme is fascinating precisely because it caught some very knowledgeable people. They knew Madoff. Everyone trusted him, including the regulators.
That’s one reason those savvy investors gave him their money. But there is surely another reason. Since the 1930s, investors have been led to believe the regulatory system watches out for dishonest investment schemes. That creates a false sense of security — and sets people up to be conned.
Advocates of regulation attribute almost magical powers to regulators, but clever cheats can get around any system. They always have. It’s their chosen profession, and the regulators can’t look everywhere. Regulation advocates also assume that bureaucrats are disinterested and incorruptible, but we know this is not always true. People who work in government are like anyone else. There will always be a percentage of individuals who can be tempted by corrupt opportunities. The logic of regulation would require that super bureaucrats be appointed to watch over the regulatory agencies.
But who will watch over them?
This is why regulation is counterproductive and a poor substitute for investor vigilance. The more rigorous the regulatory effort appears, the more risky it is. …
Using the passing of Father Richard John Neuhaus, David Brooks defends death.
William D. Eddy was an Episcopal minister in Tarrytown, N.Y., and an admirer of the writer and theologian Richard John Neuhaus. When Rev. Eddy grew gravely ill about 20 years ago, I asked Neuhaus to write him a letter of comfort.
I was shocked when I read it a few weeks later. As I recall, Neuhaus’s message was this: There are comforting things you and I have learned to say in circumstances such as these, but we don’t need those things between ourselves.
Neuhaus then went on to talk frankly and extensively about death. Those two men were in a separate fraternity and could talk directly about things the rest avoided.
Neuhaus was no stranger to death. As a young minister, he worked in the death ward at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, a giant room with 50 to 100 dying people in it, where he would accompany two or three to their deaths each day. One sufferer noticed an expression on Neuhaus’s face and said, “Oh, oh, don’t be afraid,” and then sagged back and expired. …