Neocon-Style Social Engineering

Economy, Energy, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Socialism, Taxation

However you slice it, what you have in Charles Krauthammer is a crypto-leftist. Here he proposes an elaborate tax scheme to shape consumer conduct. After all, that’s why we have know-it-alls like Krauthammer—to lead us toward the light:

[BLOVIATION BEGINS]

“Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax–together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax. Indeed, that reduction in payroll tax should go into effect the preceding week, so that the upside of the swap (the cash from the payroll tax rebate) is in hand even before the downside (the tax) kicks in.

The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction. (There are, of course, more drivers than workers–203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive–there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65–would receive it with their Social Security payments.)

Revenue neutrality is essential. No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn’t get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government. …”

[SNIP]

Incentivizing good behavior (“drive less and shift to fuel-efficient cars”), and penalizing bad is in the purview of the big, overweening neoconservative government. This has been the Bush mandate. And it’s of a piece with Obama’s impetus.

Hear it straight from the ass’s mouth: “The whole idea is to reward those who drive less and to disadvantage those who drive more. … we support such incentives because … Decreased oil consumption is a … desirable national good.”

Who is this Royal “We” you speak of, Krauthammer, you statist?

Inoculate yourself against the gaseous one with “The Goods On Gas.”

Updated: Palestinian Propaganda

Africa, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jihad, Palestinian Authority, Propaganda, War

Jihad Watch has the goods:

Human Shields Update: “OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private homes as ammunition stores.”

And:

Perhaps all this is painfully obvious, but the mainstream media has become a full-bore organ of “Palestinian” propaganda. This CNN article is just one egregious example out of many. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph about the civilians wounded in Gaza, with only one skeptical sentence giving the other side of the matter: “Israeli leaders say they are trying to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.” They “say” they’re “trying” — but as the rest of the article shows, obviously they’re not succeeding.

What could CNN do if it had any interest in actually being an organ of respectable journalism? CNN reporters could have asked about the Palestinians’ admitted use of civilians as human shields. They could have gone to Meshaal and Haniyah and asked why Hamas is launching attacks from civilian areas.

Read on.

Here’s an antidote to the mainstream media propaganda on Israel and Gaza:

If you or someone you love is falling prey to mainstream media propaganda about the jihad against Israel and the rest of the world, get the facts in this flash video from the Horowitz Center.

Update (Jan 5): You’re wrong about the enemies of the Palestinian people, Myron. You err in making the same split that commentators carrying on about Mugabe commit: the bifurcation between the good people of Africa and Arabia and their wicked leaders.

In the latter case, the Arab Street has always been more radical than the leadership. Witness the muted reaction from Muslim heads of state to the Israeli incursion, compared to that of the seething Street.

As to the people of Africa versus their leaders: Do you know of any opposition leaders du jour, favored by the wise West, who’ve departed in conduct from the Strong Man they’ve usurped? Almost every African, the little guy too, considers “public office as an exercise in scavenging.”

Take a look at Africa’s affairs. Its people need no special encouragement from their leaders to shed blood.

Update III: Bush Bolsters Israel, Makes Policy Change Hard for Barack

Barack Obama, Bush, Democracy, Economy, Individual Rights, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Neoconservatism, War

“President George W Bush called the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an ‘act of terror’ and outlined his own conditions for a ceasefire in Gaza, in his weekly radio address to the American people.”

Listen to the president’s radio address. This is a very emphatic statement from George Bush. Such a forceful position in support for Israel makes it hard for the incoming president to deviate, or chart a new course.

Update I: The backdrop to the Israeli offensive:

A quarter of a million Israeli citizens have been living under incessant terror attacks from the Gaza Strip with thousands of missiles fired over the past eight years.

Israel left Gaza in 2005, giving Palestinians the chance to run their own lives. Despite this, more than 6300 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel since then.

During the past year alone, more than 3000 rockets and mortars have been launched into Israel.

As US President-elect Obama stated during a visit to Sderot five months ago, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.”

More…

Update II (Jan. 4): Regarding Bush and the comment by “gunjam” (may his gun never jam): Bush’s support for Israel’s self-defense need not be psychologized. The president’s violation of the negative rights of Iraqis; and his support for those of Israelis is not courageous, but craven and contradictory. As I observed in “Conservatives For Killing Terri“:

I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.

The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a “Crunchy Con” of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s “blind spot on the environment.” (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)

The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.

Update III: Did I hear Bush claim Hamas took over Gaza by violent coup? This is what the neoconservatives would like their acolytes to believe. This pie-in-the-Palestinian-sky helps neocons downplay the failure of their democratic evangelizing. Hamas, of course, won the 2006 elections fair and square. Even J. Carter conceded that much, if I’m not mistaken, as did other observers like him, who rushed to the PA to watch their Palestinian protégés practice democracy. The neocons will never admit that a democratic heart does not beat in every breast. In their cultural relativism they are no different from the lefties. Neocons are simply lefties who like war.

Updated: Older Liberals Like Me

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, EU, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism

James Burnham on classical liberals of the nineteenth century:

“Older liberals tended to be patriotic and nationalistic. They believed in the self-government, independence and sovereignty of their own country, and also in the right of other nations and peoples to be independent and self-governing. They were ready to fight, and did fight… There was little trace of pacifism in nineteenth century liberalism; rather more imperialism than pacifism.”

“As rationalists they believed that … other things being equal, peace among nations is better than war. But Peace had a modest priority; there were a number of other things, Liberty prominent among them, more important than Peace.” (Suicide of the West, 1964, p. 172)

In some respects, modern-day libertarians are closer to left-liberals than classical liberals—in preaching pacifism, and in their disregard for notion of the nation and its place among nations.

Update I (Jan. 3): Speaking of nineteenth-century liberals like myself, “Eurosceptic Czech President Vaclav Klaus” is a good example. Klaus opposes the European Union for its sovereignty sundering supranational regulation, and “stubbornly refuses to fly the EU flag.”

It’s a great shame that his people, who once cheered this free-thinking, free marketeer, are turning against him—and their better instincts—and toward the prevailing, pitiful PC around them. Resisting propaganda is never easy.