About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

The Defense Rusts

Ronald Reagan won in 1980 in part by pledging to rebuild a military eviscerated by Jimmy Carter. Who'll challenge Hillary Clinton on the damage her co-president husband did to America's defenses?

After a Missouri Air National Guard F-15 came apart in early November, the Air Force grounded its fleet of 450 F-15Cs. At a time when Russia was resuming its long-range bomber patrols that it had curtailed after our victory in the Cold War, the Canadian air force volunteered its F-18s to patrol the skies over and near Alaska.

We ought to be ashamed, just as we ought to worry that no presidential candidate has made an issue of a steady decline in military capability. The Democrats will say this is because we have spent too much on Iraq. Even if true, that's no reason to spend too little defending against other threats.

Our lack of capability is a direct legacy of the Clinton years. While President Bush has reversed Clinton's failure to confront America's enemies, he has not had time while fighting the war on terror to reverse the damage done to the military Clinton loathed.

In the first six years of the Clinton administration, Bush 41's budget projections for weapons procurement were slashed by $160 billion. For fiscal 2000, the Congressional Budget Office said $90 billion a year was needed to hold procurement steady. The Clinton procurement budget was a mere $55 billion. During the Reagan buildup (fiscal 1981-87), we spent an average of $131 billion on procurement.

Because we didn't spend enough on defense and procurement during the Clinton years, it's going to be expensive to catch up. Because we're still spending too little on defense, the Air Force's original plans for 750 F-22 Raptors to replace the aging F-15 has been reduced to just 183.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Freezes Over

Some British doctors are suggesting that the government medical system deny treatment to the old and those who have unhealthy lifestyles. Is this the sort of "free" and "universal" care we should have?

The London Telegraph is reporting that the doctors believe "smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations."

Perhaps the doctors are following the lead of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the British agency that provides guidance on public health. In 2005, NICE proposed that the National Health Service use age as a measurement of a patient's worthiness for treatment.

The reason for the hard hearts in Britain: The NHS can no longer afford to provide free treatment for everyone.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

One More Year Living Dangerously For Unsung Commander In Chief

To someone unaware of what America and the world have been through the past seven years, President Bush's final State of the Union address might have seemed little different from any other joint-session speech of the past quarter-century.

More bipartisan approval might well have been expected for a chief executive who for more than six years now has prevented a repeat of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Instead, there is bitter resentment from top Democrats over his no-holds-barred approach to the global war on terror.

The National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, the CIA's interrogation program and this White House's steadfast refusal to follow official Washington's advice and accept "defeat with dignity" in Iraq have combined to infuriate congressional Democrats.

Seated behind him, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi clearly had no intention of clapping and standing. An instant later, however, she — and her fellow Democrats — thought better of it and joined in the applause.

Some of the most valuable information delivered to the president in those sessions has come from both the NSA's warrantless surveillance program and the CIA's special interrogation program. They have revealed not only details of al-Qaida's organization, but also the terrorists' motives and how they operate. It alerted the U.S. and its allies, for example, to the extent to which the terrorist threat comes from second-generation immigrants in Spain, Britain and other countries in Europe.

Unfortunately, because of the secrets involved, the public is not in a position to appreciate how those telecom firms have helped saved lives.

If the next president proves less vigilant or courageous, the victories in the global war on terror of these years could come undone. Indeed, there is worry at this administration's highest levels that the next administration might squander the successes seen in Iraq courtesy of Gen. Petraeus' surge.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is It Just Him Or The Entire Democratic Party?


Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sorry



http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2008/01/01292008.jpg

The feud continues with the 21st Century version of the Hatfields and the McCoys: The Clintons and the Kennedys. This is glorious.

The NY chapter of the National Organization of Woman is outraged, calling Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama a betrayal.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No "Straight Talk" From McCain

When challenged on his attacks on Mitt Romney, McCain repeats "It's straight talk!" over and over. George Will calls McCain "a Clinton impersonator" for the way he's twisting and distorting Mitt's record on Iraq "timetables" and private sector experience.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let Them Have It

Give Gaza (back) to Egypt  Daniel Pipes comes up with a proposal that would make the region more secure, benefiting both Palestinians and Israelis. For this reason, we imagine that Hamas wouldn't go for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Camelot

Caroline Kennedy endorses Barack Obama for president because, like her father, he has "a special gift for inspiring young people." Maybe so, but we knew John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama is no JFK.

Speaking of taxes, Caroline's father, before Reagan and Bush did, pushed for across-the-board tax cuts that would, as he put it in his campaign, get the country moving again. The Kennedy tax cuts worked, just as the Reagan and Bush cuts did.

Obama has proposed eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes, now set at the first $97,500 of income. According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama's proposal would raise the taxes for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 post-secondary teachers and 237,000 dentists.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Sounds like the Bush policy to us.

To carry out that pledge, JFK said, "We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Is Obama in favor of a defense buildup to confront a resurgent Russia and an ambitious China?

If Caroline wants, as the title of her piece suggests, "A President Like My Father," it is not Barack Obama. Today, John F. Kennedy would likely switch parties and become a Republican.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Not One Of Us


Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Well, Should There Be?

Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps? - PLEASE NOTE: My apologies for the length of this article, but this has turned into something of a horror story. Only a short while ago, I thought that the power factor issue was most important, then that a vast number of enclosed light fittings (probably hundreds of millions worldwide) cannot be used with CFLs was critical. Now, it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined. What happens in houses where dimmers are fitted? These must be removed completely, not simply set to maximum and left there. Who’s going to pay to have millions of dimmers worldwide removed by electricians? You, the homeowner - that’s who.

Australian (Worldwide?) Ban on Incandescent Lamps

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Don't Even Know

To bio or not to bio - are ‘green’ fuels really good for the earth? - From the top of the Greenergy refinery in Immingham you can see across the Humber estuary to Hull. A hum of equipment fills the air, along with a curious smell. Popcorn.

Greenergy processes vegetable oil. It takes the gloopy juice squeezed from inside rape seeds harvested on surrounding Lincolnshire fields, strips out the waste and chemically tweaks the leftovers to make it easier to burn. Greenergy pipes almost 100,000 tonnes a year of its veggie option to ConocoPhillips and Texaco, just across the road, which mix it with their diesel fuel.

Until recently, the operation was viewed as a good thing. Because the oilseed rape plants absorb carbon dioxide, the company says the carbon emissions of the mixed fuel are lower, which helps the fight against global warming. And because oil companies that supply the blend pay less tax, everybody wins. Greenergy is expanding and similar facilities are going up elsewhere.

"It is a confusing situation, which provoked New Scientist to call on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to “determine whether biofuels are good or bad”. The issue splits even the green campaigners: Friends of the Earth said this week’s European move was a disaster; WWF welcomed it."(The Guardian)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not The Problem

Blaming carbon on planes ‘is flight of fancy’ - Which is worse for the environment – cars or aircraft? If your answer was aircraft, then you are among a growing crowd of aerophobes egged on by anti-aviation campaigners.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Will Tell You "We Know The Truth"

I am an intellectual blasphemer - When Alexander Cockburn, author of the forthcoming book A Short History of Fear, dared to question the climate change consensus, he was punished by a tsunami of self-righteous fury. It is time for a free and open ‘battle of ideas’, he says.

"
While the world’s climate is on a warming trend, there is zero evidence that the rise in CO2 levels has anthropogenic origins. For daring to say this I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive