August 15, 2005

The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power the Economy

From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal budget-deficit picture turned brighter Monday as congressional scorekeepers released new estimates showing the level of red ink for the current fiscal year would drop to $331 billion.

The new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which does budget analysis for lawmakers in Washington, gave the latest proof that surging revenues and a steadily growing economy are combining to bring the deficit down from a record $412 billion posted last year. CBO predicts a $314 billion deficit for the budget year starting Oct. 1.

The report is welcome news for President Bush, who has seen the budget situation during his tenure deteriorate markedly from predictions of unending surpluses when he took office in January 2001.

"The CBO report confirms the dramatic improvement in the 2005 deficit picture that the Administration reported last month," said Scott Milburn a spokesman for the White House budget office. "A strong economy fueled by tax relief is generating stronger-than-projected revenues."

See also these previous posts:

The Bush Tax Cuts Have Resulted in Higher Tax Revenue

Lower Taxes Make the Economy Stronger

Lower Tax Rates Are Resulting In Higher Tax Revenue

A Myth Debunked: Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Favor the Rich

Tax Cuts Work: Government Forecasting Incorrectly Thought Tax Costs Would Reduce Tax Revenue

250 MILES PER GALLON?

Debate on Iraqi Constitution: Women’s Rights Question Not Yet Answered

Whether the Koran is to be "the" source of Iraq law is still being decided:

The issue of women's rights was just as complicated and undecided, falling under Shiite demands that Islam be the main source of legislation. That could affect the civil code, because Islamic law, or sharia, women might not receive the same share of inheritance and cannot initiate divorce.

Sharia also condones such things as stoning women to death.

The Iraqi Parliament has extended the deadline for agreement on the charter Constitution to Aug. 22.

HERE'S A RARE CASE IN WHICH I LIKE WHAT HOWARD DEAN IS SAYING:

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq." 

This will help pressure the Iraqis to draft a constitution that does not make the Koran "the source" of Iraqi law, which would have a devastating effect on women's rights. 

This comment from Farrakhan deserves a quick fisking:

MILWAUKEE -- Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Mexican President Vicente Fox was right to say that Mexican immigrants take jobs "that not even blacks want."

Although Fox was sharply criticized for his remarks by some black leaders, Farrakhan said Sunday that blacks do not want to go to farms and pick fruit because they already "picked enough cotton."

"Why are you so foolishly sensitive when somebody is telling you the truth?" he asked the crowd at Mercy Memorial Baptist Church. He said blacks and Latinos should form an alliance to correct differences and animosity between the two communities.

I think it's the "not even" part of the Fox's statement that is obectionable. "Not even" indicates a lesser or lower stature.

Maybe Farrakhan would like to endorse this racist postage stamp from Mexico as well. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS CLIENTS PRESSURE AP TO START REPORTING WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN IRAQ.

Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.

"Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?" the anonymous polemic asks, in part. "Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?"

"Of course we didn't know!" the message concludes. "Our media doesn't tell us!"

Ms. Goudreau's newspaper, like most dailies in America, relies largely on The Associated Press for its coverage of the Iraq war. So she finally forwarded the e-mail message to Mike Silverman, managing editor of The A.P., asking if there was a way to check these assertions and to put them into context. Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had also received a copy of the message.

Ms. Goudreau's query prompted an unusual discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose newspapers are members of The Associated Press. Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture beyond the daily death tolls.

"The bottom-line question was, people wanted to know if we're making progress in Iraq," Ms. Goudreau said, and the A.P. articles were not helping to answer that question.

"It was uncomfortable questioning The A.P., knowing that Iraq is such a dangerous place," she said. "But there's a perception that we're not telling the whole story."

Mr. Silverman said in an interview that he was aware of that perception. "Other editors said they get calls from readers who are hearing stories from returning troops of the good things they have accomplished while there, and readers find that at odds with the generally gloomy portrayal in the papers of what's going on in Iraq," he said.

MSM's biased reporting is being exposed by what our own returning troops, who have risked their lives, report to their friends and families.

The Israeli Pullout from Gaza

DANIEL PIPES: 

The Israeli government's removal of its own citizens from Gaza ranks as one of the worst errors ever made by a democracy.

This step is the worse for being self-imposed, not the result of pressure from Washington. When the Bush administration first heard in December 2003 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had unilaterally decided to pull all soldiers and civilians from Gaza, it responded coolly. Months of persuasion were needed to get the White House to embrace the initiative. The harm will be three-fold: within Israel, in relations with the Palestinians, and internationally.

Sharon won the prime ministry in early 2003 by electorally crushing an opponent who espoused unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Sharon declared back then: "A unilateral withdrawal is not a recipe for peace. It is a recipe for war." For unknown reasons, in late 2003 he adopted his opponent's policy of leaving Gaza, thereby reneging on his promises, betraying his supporters, and inflicting lasting damage on Israeli public life.

Charles Krauthammer, with whom I almost always agree, has argued that the Gaza pullout makes sense:

The fence decision makes clear that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is only part of a larger strategy, the first serious strategic idea Israel has had since its period of utter confusion and demoralization at the beginning of the 2000 intifada. The idea is this: Israel must (unilaterally, if necessary) rationalize its defensive lines -- in order to (1) protect its citizens, (2) permanently defuse the Palestinian terrorist threat and thus (3) open the door to a final peace.

Evacuating Gaza and completing the fence are complementary parts of that strategy. Both Gaza and the northern West Bank are separated from Israel by fences. Not a single suicide bomber has infiltrated through them. As a result, northern Israel enjoys calm.

But in Gaza, which is also surrounded by a fence, the bloodshed has continued. Why? Because 8,200 Jews are living on the wrong side of the fence. Defending them involves enormous Israeli military deployments, great danger and no real return. Everyone knows that ultimately this island of Jews in a sea of a million Arabs will have to go.

Once Israel leaves Gaza, and once the rest of the West Bank fence is completed, the Israeli and Palestinian populations will be almost perfectly divided in their own territories as defined by this temporary frontier. The fence approved by the Cabinet last Sunday leaves perhaps 1 percent of Israelis on the wrong (Palestinian) side of the fence and perhaps 0.4 percent of Palestinians on the wrong (Israeli) side of the fence. (These figures exclude polyglot Jerusalem.) This defensive barrier separating the two populations will not only prevent suicide bombers from killing hundreds of innocent civilians. It will change the entire strategic equation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The terrorism weapon that the Palestinians have brandished in the past -- and will surely brandish again at every turn in negotiations when their maximal demands go unmet -- will disappear.

I have tried for months to buy into Krauthammer's view, and I would be glad if he is proven correct. But no other authority I have read supports this view. And the gigantic rewards the Gaza pullout gives to the enemies of Israel -- the ones who make war on Israel gleefuly, because Israel does not make war on them in return -- appear to present a grave danger to Israel. Per Daniel Pipes (same link as above):

To Palestinian rejectionists, an Israeli retreat under fire sends an unambiguous signal: Terrorism works. Just as the Israeli departure from Lebanon five years earlier provoked new violence, so too will fleeing Gaza. Palestinians ignore all the verbiage about "disengagement" and see it for what it really is, an Israeli retreat under fire.