Are the Elites Out to Repeat LBJ and Nixon Years?

Looks like elites want to take us back to the failed days of LBJ policy and Nixon secrecy which makes my head swim and ask the question "WHY?"  Do elites never admit they made a mistake?  They are always right no matter if something fails -- it is all of us who just don't understand them and their way of governing.  (sarcasm)

Do they want gimmicks like Romney did in MA as Governor and Huckabee in AR -- raise fees and then brag about they didn't raise taxes.  That is short term fix not a long term one.  Cutting tax loopholes should be in play not cutting taxes across the board until the economy is in better shape.  Laying off federal employees like Romney wants to do when he takes office will send this Country into more of a tailspin but then as he said before he "likes to fire people" and smiles.

When are going to get candidates with new ideas who understand the vast majority of the American people and what we go through on a daily basis?  This election is about two out of touch candidates although no one can be more out of touch then Romney.

Quotation of the Day…
by Don Boudreaux on June 11, 2012 

… is from page 161 of Robert Higgs’s 2012 book Delusions of Power (original emphasis; link added); here, Bob is writing about policy-making in the U.S. during the reign of LBJ:

Had economic theorists rested content with using the microeconomics of the Neoclassical Synthesis strictly as a conceptual device employed in abstract reasoning, it might have done little damage. However, as I have already suggested, this type of theory cried out for application, which in practice was nearly always misapplication. The idealized conditions required for theoretical general-equilibrium efficiency could not possibly obtain in the real world, yet the economists readily endorsed government measures aimed at coercively pounding the real world into conformity with these impossible theoretical conditions. Closely examined, such efforts represented a form of madness.

Be Sociable, Share!
Source:  Cafe Hayek

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Daily Update

Today we are bringing you all three topics from CEI because they are timely and people need to see what is happening. We love the fact that Senator Murkowski from Alaska has laid the regulations in the clean air act right at the foot of Obama -- there is nothing bipartisan about this scam. EPA has done more over the years to hurt the economy than they have to help the environment with some of the strangest rules they come up with like reformulated gas which costs people in most places 10 cents more a gallon. Why? What good does it do?

Now we learn that the Jones Act being strictly enforced by Obama is harming the efforts in the Gulf on the oil spill. To learn he is being tougher than the unions leaves us asking another Why? What good does it do? Why not take the help and not worry about the Jones Law when we have Gulf states under attack from the BP oil spill but then we are still wondering why he wouldn't talk to the President of BP at the beginning.

Ethanol the last topic of the day is one that leaves a really bad taste in our mouth as nothing has been proven it helps gasoline in any way but we are stuck paying extra to get ethanol free gas. This was done as a subsidy to corn farmers of Iowa without any justification whatsoever except some environmentalists pipe dream as a way to make money for corn producers and be less reliant on oil. Now we learn that a tariff is being put on imported ethanol which will raise the price even more. Why?

When does all this nonsense stop by this inept Administration? Election 2010 cannot come too soon for us.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Daily Update
Issues in the News
June 15, 2010

1. ENVIRONMENT

Last week, the Senate rejected Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval against the EPA.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis on why Murkowski has won a political victory, even if she suffered a legislative defeat.

“By denying President Obama bipartisan cover for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Sen. Murkowski has made EPA’s endangerment rule a political liability for Democrats and a political asset for Republicans in an election year. That should increase the pressure on moderate Dems and Republicans alike to distance themselves from Democratic leaders and eschew cap-and-trade, which, like EPA’s regulations, would increase consumer energy prices, killing jobs and growth.”

2. POLITICS

President Obama has refused offers from several European countries to help clean up the oil spill because he would have to waive union-backed laws mandating that American vessels have American crews.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Counsel Hans Bader on why the President’s priorities are skewed.

“Ironically, even the staunchest supporters of the Jones Act are now distancing themselves from refusals to accept foreign help, saying they have ‘not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis.’ Obama is being more intransigently pro-union than the unions themselves.”

3. TRADE

United Ethanol signs an agreement to license GreenShift Corporation’s patented corn oil extraction technology.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Research Associate Brian McGraw on why the Congress should end the U.S. tariff on Brazilian ethanol.

“Taxes on imported ethanol force consumers to rely on inefficient and expensive ethanol produced from corn in the United States. These tariffs, in effect, declare war on consumers, raising the price at the pump as well as the price of all goods and services that require transportation to their final point of sale.”

Some troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban stronghold

If Afghanistan turning into another political war where the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are determined by politicians not the military? Or have our generals become too politically connected so politics comes first when making decision?

We are not sure which is happening but whatever the reason our troops are being put in harm's way with one hand tied behind their backs in a lot of instances. Where there is a war, there are going to be civilian casualities. Impossible to protect the civilian population 100% during an effort to weed out the terrorists who hied in the villages and use civilians as shields.

Is it making the job tougher and with more risk to our military? We believe it is and past time that our troops be given 100% of what they need and common sense return to the ROE in lieu of political correctness. No way to fight a war when you start out at a disadvantage with the enemy knowing you cannot do certain things. Whatever happened to keeping the enemy off guard on what you might do next?

Our troops deserve better then this!

Some troops say strict rules of engagement slow their advance on Taliban stronghold
MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they're fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

"I understand the reason behind it, but it's so hard to fight a war like this," said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. "They're using our rules of engagement against us," he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can't count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

"This is difficult," Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. "We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don't have guns."

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

But troops complain that strict rules of engagement — imposed to spare civilian casualties — are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

"The problem is isolating where the enemy is," said Capt. Joshua Winfrey, a Marine company commander from Stillwater, Oklahoma. "We are not going to drop ordnance out in the open."

That's a marked change from the battle of Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004. When Marines there encountered snipers holed up in a building, they routinely called in airstrikes. In Marjah, fighter jets are flying at low altitude in a show of force, but are not firing missiles.

Politically, it's not the best time to campaign for relaxing the rules in Afghanistan. On Sunday, two U.S. rockets struck a house and killed 12 Afghan civilians during the offensive in Marjah, NATO said. On Monday, a NATO airstrike accidentally killed five civilians and wounded two in neighboring Kandahar province.

Read more at Chicago Tribune