|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Why is Everyone Picking on Paul O’Neill
One of the issues that has been surprising me lately is all of the media badmouthing of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. The New Republic, Slate and others have been calling for the Secretary’s resignation because he doesn’t seem to care enough. Unlike Robert “Enron” Rubin, O’Neill knows that his importance in the economy is not large and making a speech saying that the economy is stable in the long run, but temporarily in a recession, will not do anything out of the ordinary to help the economy. I doubt whether there is anyone in the country who has stopped their investing in the market or slowed down their consumerism based on the lack of press conferences by Sec. O’Neill.
Personally, I think he is about the most honest cabinet official because he is the only one who says he doesn’t know everything about the economy. He is an old-style neoclassicist and wants balanced budgets, low taxes, and more power in the hands of the central bank. Rather than calling for added spending or more tax cuts (unlike the Pres.) he says we should let the cycle run its course.
Here’s one endorsement for Paul O’Neill!
10:51 PM
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Finally Embracing an Old Democratic Ideal
Mark Shields has been asking for some sacrifice from the Bush Administration and the nation as a whole in many of his recent columns. This week’s makes one of the most persuasive points:
“Bush has to understand that war is and cannot be a spectator sport, where the nation's privileged elites and their families, at a safe remove, look on while fellow citizens they do not know -- and will never meet -- do the fighting and the dying. Barone is right: War truly does demand equality of sacrifice.”
He points out the lack of egalitarianism in national service in America these days and mentions some of the good and bad examples in Congress. I think some of this nostalgia for every man “doing his share” is not backed strongly by history. For example, in the Civil War an extremely higher proportion of the population avoided the draft than in the Vietnam War (Grover Cleveland hired a substitute.) I do think our current situation is a far slip from the performance of the “Greatest Generation” where many elites enlisted and served with honor. If America does not change its policies on military service, the once proud military of the United States could face a problem similar to that of another republic: Rome.
The Romans began their rise to power as a republic of many middle-class landowners, who all served in the army when necessary and paid for their own uniforms. This provided the Romans with a stable army of citizens dedicated to the interest of the city-state. This began to change toward the end of the Punic Wars, when many upper-class citizens bought up the property of soldiers who had died in wars and forced their families into the city or hired them as cheap labor on their estates. This exploitation of war destroyed the backbone of Roman society and allowed people like Marius, Sulla and Caesar to overthrow the republic and create a despotism that never reverted to its old ways.
I don’t think this drastic scenario is anywhere in sight as of now, but it should be on the back of everyone’s mind when we are going to war with a tax cut and without a draft.
8:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
