Other Informative Stories That We are Following on September 1, 2015

Article posted on September 1st, 2015 by WhatAmIMissingHere

Why Democrats Will Soon Regret ‘Victory’ on the Iran Deal – New York Post  …  “A ‘staggering betrayal’ is how one pro-Israel activist in Washington describes any use by the Democrats of a filibuster to prevent the Iran deal from getting a full vote next month in the Senate. That is emerging as the goal of the backers of President Obama’s contract with the mullahs. They want to block the measure from getting a vote in the Senate at all, which would leave Obama with a free hand to release billions to the Tehran regime. The activist, Omri Ceren, who is The Israel Project’s managing director and has been working the story for months, says that would be a ‘stab in the face.’ He notes that ‘Americans by a 2-1 margin want Congress to reject the bad Iran deal.'”

“Moreover, if Obama fails to win a simple majority of either the Senate or the House or both, a startling situation is going to emerge. The administration is going to have to implement a pact that voters couldn’t block but still oppose. That would be a ghastly situation for the Democrats — worse even than what happened after SALT II, the arms pact President Jimmy Carter inked at Vienna with Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev. But if Obama is left with a deal that is opposed by a majority of either the Senate or the House, the Democrats will be stuck with it. They will then be on the defensive with every hostile move Iran makes with the $150 billion the mullahs are going to get. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has reported an amazing lack of reaction by the Obama administration and others to rocket attacks from Syria that last week struck northern Israel and that were initiated by Iran.”

White House Sidesteps Hubbub About Obama’s Future Role at Columbia – New York Times  …  “A passing comment by the president of Columbia University on Monday touched off a flurry of expectations that President Obama would affiliate with the university, his alma mater, after he leaves office, but the White House said no decisions had been made. Lee C. Bollinger, the Columbia president, mentioned at convocation that he looked forward to welcoming back the university’s most famous alumnus, a remark that was quickly repeated on social media. Mr. Obama earned a bachelor’s degree from Columbia in 1983.”

“‘The president has long talked about his respect for Columbia University and his desire to continue working with them,’ Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters during Mr. Obama’s trip to Alaska in response to Mr. Bollinger’s comments. ‘However, at this point no decisions have been finalized about his post-presidency plans.’ Columbia said in a statement that Mr. Bollinger’s comment only reiterated the May 12 statement by the Barack Obama Foundation that it ‘intends to maintain a presence at Columbia University for the purpose of exploring and developing opportunities for a long-term association’ and reflected no further developments concerning President Obama’s plans.”

The Redistribution Fallacy – Commentary  … “Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring by venturing from New York to Iowa to rail against income inequality and to propose new spending programs and higher taxes on the wealthy as remedies for it. She again emphasized these dual themes of inequality and redistribution in the ‘re-launch’ of her campaign in June and in the campaign speeches she delivered over the course of the summer. Clinton’s campaign strategy has been interpreted as a concession to influential progressive spokesmen, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who have loudly pressed these redistributionist themes for several years in response to the financial meltdown in 2008 and out of a longstanding wish to reverse the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.”

“Public-opinion polls over the years have consistently shown that voters overwhelmingly reject programs of redistribution in favor of policies designed to promote overall economic growth and job creation. More recent polls suggest that while voters are increasingly concerned about inequality and question the high salaries paid to executives and bankers, they nevertheless reject redistributive remedies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. While voters are worried about inequality, they are far more skeptical of the capacity of governments to do anything about it without making matters worse for everyone.”

“As is often the case, there is more wisdom in the public’s outlook than in the campaign speeches of Democratic presidential candidates and in the books and opinion columns of progressive economists. Leaving aside the morality of redistribution, the progressive case is based upon a significant fallacy. It assumes that the U.S. government is actually capable of redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor. For reasons of policy, tradition, and institutional design, this is not the case. Whatever one may think of inequality, redistributive fiscal policies are unlikely to do much to reduce it, a point that the voters seem instinctively to understand.”

Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post Send To A Friend Send To A Friend

Post a comment

Do you have an interesting news story that just doesn't "add up," or is not receiving the appropriate coverage in the news, just let us know. We'd love to hear it! And, we'll investigate. CLICK HERE.
Get What Am I Missing Here delivered to your inbox for FREE!