Mr. Krugman is a political propaganda columnist for the New York Times, where predictably he is a strident critic of individuals’ economic and political liberties when they conflict with Federal collectivism. As an advocate of Neo-Keynesian economic theory, he believes that only intervention by the Federal government can effectively deal with changing economic conditions to insure full employment.

Neo-Keynesian doctrine is a reaction to the massive failure of Keynesian economics in the 1970s stagflation, a prolonged period of high unemployment combined with the highest peacetime rates of inflation ever suffered in the United States. It is a defensive effort to salvage as much as possible of New Deal Keynesian economics.

Keynesian economics, the handiwork of British economist John Maynard Keynes in the period between World War I and the middle of the Roosevelt New Deal, was a paradigm of the economy in which only government spending could counter the Depression and bring employment back up to historical levels. In that paradigm, capitalistic business had failed in 1929 and would never again be able to employ everyone needing a job. Thus the Federal government had to become the employer to take up the slack.

This remains the economic creed of the Democratic Party, which explains why Democrats (along with Republican liberals) instinctively propose higher taxes on the “greedy rich” and new spending programs to provide jobs for the not-so-rich, no matter what problem arises. Note that this is classic socialism, the materialistic religious faith that redistributing income via taxation and government spending will transform the political state and human nature, eventually creating an economic heaven-on-earth.

Collectivist economic doctrine colors Mr. Krugman’s New York Times propaganda and is evident in his criticism of Milton Friedman in the New York Review of Books essay.

In that piece, Mr. Krugman admits that Mr. Friedman, before it occurred, developed economic analytical theory that predicted the 1970s stagflation.

Since President Franklin Roosevelt’s deliberate devaluation of the dollar and efforts to raise commodity prices (i.e., inflation), liberals have championed demand-side economics, which is the theory that businesses will increase employment only if government spending first puts money into consumers’ pockets. This, however, imparts an inflationary bias to the economy, since money goes to people before business ramps up production of consumable goods. The result is simply more money chasing an unchanged supply of goods, and prices rise.

Such inflation did not trouble Keynesians, who were confident that higher inflation produces higher employment, a concept known as the Phillips curve.

Milton Friedman demolished that thesis in his 1957 “A Theory of the Consumption Function.” He observed that the first rush of inflation might make employers think that the economy was picking up steam and thus hire more people, because businesses’ sale prices would temporarily increase faster that wages, producing more profit and inducing more employment.

But, after 25 years of such inflation, everyone from labor unions, to government workers and retirees, had long since been granted cost-of-living adjustment clauses that almost immediately increased materials and labor costs and crimped profits. Moreover, as businessmen and consumers became increasingly aware of the phenomenon, they built it into their expectations, making government spending ineffective in raising employment, but poisonously effective in augmenting inflation.

While Mr. Friedman did not specifically predict the 1970s stagflation, his analysis made it clear that such conditions would be the result of inflationary spending by government.

Mr. Krugman gives credit to Mr. Friedman for that insight, but merely mentions the 1970s stagflation obliquely. He fails to admit that the United States suffered an economic catastrophe and that blame lay entirely at the feet of liberal advocates of Big-Brother economic intervention by the Federal government.

George Santayana wrote that those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it. Mr Krugman is Exhibit A for that truth.

He castigates Mr. Friedman for advocating Thomas Jefferson’s view that the best government is that which governs the least. An unrepentant liberal-Progressive, he concludes his essay by reaffirming his religious faith in socialistic collectivism:

Proposals to tax globalization’s big winners reflect the yawning abyss between reality and the fairy tales of liberal-Progressive-socialism.

Mr. Wessel describes the growing unrest among voters, from blue collar to white collar workers, arising from the sense that globalization has unfavorably affected them. China’s relentlessly growing trade surplus with us, coupled with headlines about jobs outsourcing and the billions of dollars collected by private equity fund partners, have created a pervasive belief that things are not fair, that the greedy rich have grabbed too much for themselves.

One proposal to satisfy that perception is raising taxes on the upper income brackets and eliminating social security taxes on people earning less than $33,000 a year.

Mr. Wessel observes that, while such measures may be economically counter-productive, politicians pandering to public opinion are likely to enact them.

Radicals, beginning with the Populist Party in the 1890s and the Progressives in the early 20th century, advocated this sort of wealth redistribution. It was not, however, until Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s that the majority of voters came to believe that such is the function of government.

Certainly, the delegates who wrote the Constitution would have been appalled. James Madison, the most influential single member of the 1787 Constitutional convention, was hopeful that the internal checks and balances of our federal system (balanced between states and national government) would prevent socialistic schemes for redistributing wealth. In Federalist No. 10, he wrote:

“The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.”

The “inferior number” in our present-day case is the top income brackets.

Proposals to raise taxes on one sector in order to transfer wealth is pure socialism, far removed from the conception of free-market economic and political liberties for which the colonists fought in 1776.

From the standpoint of morality, or what liberals call social justice, the question is whether it is in the long run conducive to a sense of fair play when the government in power presumes that the economy is its creation, to be awarded arbitrarily to its political supporters.

A fairly typical argument for the present-day liberal-socialist viewpoint is made by Michael Walzer, a prominent liberal intellectual, whose principal point is that possession of money amounts to power and that such power is both unjust and unjustly used. In the liberal-Progressive-socialist view, all that should count is need. If people need certain things (leaving aside how that need is determined), they should simply be given them, without regard to their ability to pay.

From the standpoint of economic effectiveness, the historical record is unequivocal. Raising taxes always dampens economic activity and often throws the economy into recession. Job creation slows or workers are laid off.

President Franklin Roosevelt raised marginal income tax rates from the 20% range to the 90% range and imposed punitive taxes on businesses. The nation remained mired in the Depression for seven bitter years, with unemployment still in double digits at almost 17% in 1939 on the eve of World War II.

In contrast, tax cuts always lever up economic activity and create jobs. Major tax cuts under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, along with policies to curb the growth of the money supply, created the two great economic booms of the past fifty years. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts pulled the economy out of the Clinton administration’s dot.com recession and pushed economic activity and job creation to new highs.

Parents are caring and loving. They instinctively want to protect their families from harm.

A role of a good parent is to teach its children about things that affect their lives, including the dangerous pitfalls that come from having sexual intercourse. The trend of giving birth control pills to 11 and 12 year-old girls in our schools must stop. Instead there should be massive police investigations as to who, what when or where. These are under age little children who are being sexually molested. — Statutory Rape

How can parents take a stand in such an upside down world? Keep your eyes and ears wide open. Take a firm stand for your family’s protection. YouTube Paris Hilton Commercial For Burger King

“But wait. Arrayed against the vouchers are the usual opponents. They call themselves Utahns for Public Schools. They include, predictably, the Utah Education Association (the teachers union), Utah School Boards Association, Utah School Employees Union, Utah School Superintendents Association, the elementary and secondary school principals associations, and the PTA. ‘No to vouchers! They protest.’ ‘Trust us. We know what’s best for your kids.’ “Full Article

“As much as liberals decry major corporations that act as if they’re above the law, there’s always quiet when the subject is Planned Parenthood, America’s number one corporate provider of abortions. During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, reported a tidy profit of $55.8 million — and received a record high in taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.”

“This is one corporation the media hold in the highest regard. They’re not merchants of death. That would be the tobacco companies, or gun manufacturers, or hamburger joints. These are the heroic providers’ of a woman’s right to choose. ” — -NewsBusters

Parents must be parents, not chums or buddies to their children. Strong loving relationships between parents and children starts when they respect and trust your better judgment. Do not relinquish your parental rights to public schools or to anyone. It is time for every state to give its people a choice with school vouchers.

On Nov. 7, 2006, 59 percent of Wisconsin voters voted in support of the marriage amendment. On July 31, Wisconsin resident Bill McConkey filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jim Doyle and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, challenging the constitutionality of the amendment and requesting that the court issue an injunction to prevent its enforcement.

“Wisconsin’s marriage amendment poses no constitutional issues,” said Nimocks. “Wisconsin laws and families are strengthened by the presence of its marriage amendment. In light of that fact, we believe the court should dismiss the case.”

www.telladf.org

Congressional oversight of this substantial investment is crucial as the Bush Administration requests additional military and economic funds for Iraq. The results of recent General Accounting Office audit work proposes three areas for which continued oversight is needed: (1) progress in improving security and national reconciliation, (2) efforts to develop clear US strategies, and (3) Iraqi and international contributions to economic development.

GAO analysts reviewed US agency documents and interviewed agency officials, including the departments of State, Defense, and Treasury; and the US Agency for International Development; the UN; and the Iraqi government. These analysts also made multiple trips to Iraq as part of their work.

Since GAO last reported in September 2007, on the status of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks, the number of enemy attacks in Iraq has declined. While political reconciliation will take time, Iraq has not yet advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding provincial elections.

In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of Iraqi security forces. US efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures. The US strategy for victory in Iraq partially identifies the agencies responsible for implementing key aspects of the strategy and does not fully address how the United States would integrate its goals with those of the Iraqis and the international community.

US efforts to develop Iraqi ministry capability lack an overall strategy, no lead agency provides overall direction, and US priorities have been subject to numerous changes. The weaknesses in US strategic planning are compounded by the Iraqi government’s lack of integrated strategic planning in its critical energy sector. The US strategy assumed that the Iraqis and international community would help finance Iraq’s reconstruction. However, the Iraqi government has limited capacity to spend reconstruction funds.

For example, Iraq allocated $10 billion of its revenues for capital projects and reconstruction in 2007. However, a large portion of this amount is unlikely to be spent, as ministries had spent only 24 percent of their capital budgets through mid-July 2007.

Iraq has proposed spending only $4 billion for capital projects in 2008, a significant reduction from 2007. The international community has pledged $15.6 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but about $11 billion of this is in the form of loans.

The State Department and Department of Defense have begun to take steps to better coordinate stabilization and reconstruction activities, but several significant challenges may hinder their ability to integrate planning for potential operations and strengthen military and civilian capabilities to conduct them.

State’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization is developing a framework for US agencies to use when planning stabilization and reconstruction operations, but the framework has yet to be fully applied to any operation. The National Security Council has not approved the entire framework, guidance related to the framework is unclear, and some interagency partners have not accepted it.

For example, some interagency partners stated that the framework’s planning process is cumbersome and too time consuming for the results it produces. While steps have been taken to address concerns and strengthen the framework’s effectiveness, differences in planning capacities and procedures among US government agencies may pose obstacles to effective coordination.

DOD has taken several positive steps to improve its ability to conduct stability operations but faces challenges in developing capabilities and measures of effectiveness, integrating the contributions of non-DOD agencies into military contingency plans, and incorporating lessons learned from past operations into future plans. These challenges, if not addressed, may hinder DOD’s ability to fully coordinate and integrate stabilization and reconstruction activities with other agencies or to develop the full range of capabilities those operations may require.

Among its many efforts, DOD has developed a new policy, planning construct and joint operating concept with a greater focus on stability operations, and each service is pursuing efforts to improve capabilities. However, inadequate guidance, practices that inhibit sharing of planning information with non-DOD organizations, and differences in the planning capabilities and capacities of DOD and non-DOD organizations hinder the effectiveness of these improvement efforts.

Since 2005, the State Department has been developing three civilian corps to deploy rapidly to international crises, but significant challenges must be addressed before they will be fully capable. State and other agencies face challenges in establishing two of these units — the Active Response Corps and Standby Response Corps — because of staffing and resource constraints and concerns that stabilization and reconstruction operations are not core missions for each parent organization.

Congress has not yet enacted legislation necessary for State to obligate funds for the third unit, the Civilian Reserve Corps, staffed solely with non-federal volunteers. Further, State has not fully defined the types of missions these personnel would be deployed to support.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us