Hoover Institution: Colin Dueck: The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today

Source:Hoover Institution- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States, with The Obama Doctrine.

Source:The New Democrat

President Barack Obama laid out The Obama Doctrine in the spring of 2011. He obviously wanted to move away from the Bush Administration’s neoconservative unilateral military force is always the first option policy. But he’s not an isolationist from the Far-Left, or anywhere else that sees America and the American military as a force of evil and the reason for violence around the world. This argument that President Obama is afraid to use the military, or is anti-military, simply doesn’t hold. He expanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009, the so-called Afghan surge. And committed us to the Libyan no fly zone in 2011. And tried to get Congressional approval to hit the Assad Regime from the air in 2013, but failed to get it.

To put it simply, Barack Obama is a liberal multi-lateral internationalist. That America should be strong at home both militarily and economically. So no one would want to, or would be able to attack the United States. But work with our allies abroad to deal with crisis’ oversees. That America should take a lead role around the world, but simply can’t lead the world and certainly not police the world, especially by ourselves. This idea that President Obama has pulled America back, is true. But he has pulled America back in the sense that we no longer try to do everything ourselves. We negotiate with others especially to avoid war and avoid invading countries simply because we see them as dangerous.

President Obama, is not some New-Left radical from the 1960s. Who never believes in the use of force and is a pacifist as well as an isolationist. And if you don’t believe that, just ask Code Pink, who do represent the Far-Left in America, at least when it comes to the American national security and foreign policy. Code Pink, has all sorts of issues when it comes President Obama on foreign policy and national security. President Obama, believes in defending our interests and defending our values around the world and even using our military to do that. But that even though we are the strongest power in the world, we aren’t the only one. And that we have partners who have responsibilities as well. Canada and Europe especially, but in the Middle East and Asia, as well.

I think the only thing that I agree with this right-wing anti-Obama presentation from the Hoover Institution here, is that President Obama, does believe domestic policy is related to foreign policy and national security. I would just put it differently. The President believes that for America to be as strong as it possibly can, we need to be as strong at home as possible as well. We need a strong economy, a modern infrastructure system, a modern immigration policy, reform our tax code, get off of foreign oil and gas, develop our own natural resources, expand American exports. So we have the resources that we need and the influence that we need to defend our national interests and values.

Hoover Institution: Karl W. Eikenberry: A Grand Strategy For Failed States

Source:Hoover Institution.

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s my definition of a failed state. A state that can’t defend itself even against domestic threats whether the government is a good peaceful responsible government, or an authoritarian regime with a bad human rights record. That would be Libya right now and you could make a case for Syria as well, because without Russia, the Assad Regime might have failed by now. A state where the current government is in trouble and about to fall, where members of the government or administration are looking to escape their own country because the rebels are about to take over. Iran comes to mind in 1978-79 as a failed stated under the Shah.

So what does this mean to America and how can America prevent future failed states and why should it if it should at all.

The last thing the civilized world needs are armed terrorist groups with their own territory and land about the size of a large country that wants to occupy further territory and even take over Western allies. So the West doesn’t want ISIS or someone else being able to occupy Somalia or Libya, Yemen to use as examples, or Syria or Iraq. But at the same time we shouldn’t be subsidizing and arming authoritarian regimes in countries either. One, because of the bad human rights records of those countries. But the practical reasons being that the behavior of those countries towards their own people just feeds extremism and gives it birth. And rebels who might be just as bad as their government reason to want to overthrow the current regime.

What America should do is when one of these authoritarian states falls like in Libya, Tunisia and Yemen and the rebels aren’t as bad or as the people they are replacing and want a responsible government instead, which is what we saw in Afghanistan even with all the problems that, that country has and still has, is work with the people there to build a responsible government and modern country. That can defend itself and create an environment where their people can thrive and succeed. Where foreign countries would want to invest and everything else that developing countries have to have.

If anything the last 15-20 years have taught us is that America can’t police the world by itself. That we are limited in what we can do and have to be smart with our resources and smarter with our resources than we have in the past. That we have to work with our allies and have to be smart with rebels that want to overthrow their regimes. That you can’t work with people simply because they are against the current government that you want to see out of office. Because the rebels might be as bad if not worst than the people before them. That we shouldn’t be subsidizing authoritarian states, but we shouldn’t be subsidizing terrorists and other authoritarians either.

America should be about promoting democracy and freedom liberal or otherwise in countries that actually want it especially if they don’t already have that. Not trying to force it on people who didn’t ask for it especially if they don’t have any history of it. When you don’t subsidize and arm authoritarian states and terrorists the people in those countries don’t have reason to want to hurt you. And as a result terrorists groups are going to have fewer people that they can recruit against you. Because people they would target don’t see you as the enemy and perhaps even as a potential ally.

Hoover Institution: George P. Shultz: How to Get America Moving Again

Source:The New Democrat

George Shultz now a fellow at the Hoover Institution and of course former Secretary of State for President Reagan and I believe Secretary of Treasury or Commerce for President Nixon wrote an interesting article on how to get America moving again. I would call it a classically conservative Republican plan that moves away from the Tea Party of today and the libertarian-right of today. I don't agree with most of it. The only part I like was the part about lowering corporate taxes as long as you eliminate taxpayer funded subsidies. To get American business's more competitive with the rest of the world.

Lets take tax reform because Secretary Shultz mentioned it. Eliminate most if not all tax loopholes to lower rates across the board. Sounds like a good idea to me and if it was a choice between that and the regressive flat tax I would take the Shultz plan. But how about instead of taxing what people produce in America with their income, we tax what people take out of the country. I prefer a Progressive Consumption Tax that would tax people's basic necessities like food, water, housing, health care to use as examples at fairly low tax rates. And tax luxury items like second homes, expensive meals, ball games, luxury cars to use as examples at higher rates. Encourage people to make money and be productive and smart with their money.

As far as health care, I like the idea of health savings accounts even for low-income Americans that come with government assistance for them. I also like the idea of letting people on Medicaid opt out of Medicaid and choose a private health insurance plan, or open an health savings account. Because again it encourages people to take responsibility over their own lives, instead of government taking responsibility for them. Which makes things more cost-effective for everyone involved and encourages people to be smart consumers with their own lives.

Now how about some things that Secretary Shultz didn't mention. We need to literally rebuild this country and our national infrastructure system which would literally benefit every American especially low-income Americans who live in underdeveloped societies. And would open the way for companies to move into those communities and invest in them. But also would give access to companies to actually be able to get their products to those communities because the roads and other infrastructure would be there for that to happen. And as a result we would see new stores and business's opening up in these communities including local business's.

How about reforming public education in America with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for anyone interested in combating poverty in this country.

Instead of financing schools based on where they are located, finance based on what they need to be successful.  The Federal Government can help with extra funding for low-income communities for public schools.

Instead of sending kids to school based on where they live, let their parents send them to best public school that is best for them. That is called Public School Choice.

Instead of paying teachers based on how long they've been teaching, pay them based on how well their kids are learning. That is called Merit Pay. Encourage highly qualified highly trained people to not only go into public education, but make it worth to them financially and encourage them to especially educate in low-income communities in low-performing schools.

As far as low-income, low-skilled adults. Not just encourage them to finish their education so they can get themselves a good job, but make it an requirement for them to receive any form of public assistance. So public assistance literally becomes a way for people to move up in life. Not live in poverty with a few extra bucks. And the Feds can help out with financial assistance for education and for childcare so people with kids have someone to watch them while their parents are in school.

As far as energy policy. We need a National Energy Independence Policy that gets us off of foreign oil and gas and onto to American oil, gas and other of our own natural resources. You do that by encouraging American companies to develop, research and produce those resources in this country. That is called an All Above Energy Strategy where we produce all of America's energy sources in this country. Oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, water everything that we produce and produce it here. And be able to export them instead of importing other countries energy.

I love the ideas of cutting high taxes and pointless regulations and red tape. But that alone doesn't return America to prosperity as much as the Tea Party may claim it does. I also love the idea of deficit and debt reduction, but that is not possible without a strong economy. The economy needs to be first and rebuild that and then everything else opens up and becomes possible. And we are doing these things we also shouldn't be doing anything to add to the deficit and debt and that even includes emergency spending. Which means government needs to pay as we go from now on at least until we are back to economic and fiscal health.

Hoover Institution: Edward Paul Lazear: How to Energize a Lackluster Recovery

Source:The New Democrat

The U.S. income tax is now the biggest book ever written in the history of the world, at least as far as I know, standing at over one-million pages.  How would you like that for a book review homework assignment?  This system is in drastic need of reform.  I propose a National Progressive Consumption Tax or NPCT.

This eliminates, perhaps,  the biggest book  in world history and tells Americans that what they make and earn is legally and officially theirs but Uncle Sam will take a percentage of what they spend to provide the needed services that only the Federal Government can.  This system eliminates a lot of taxpayer funded subsidies to businesses and wealthy individuals.  No one would be able to avoid the NPCT except the working poor who would receive a scale of exemptions to replace the Earned Income Tax Credit.  They would be eligible for other subsidies to help them move up the economic ladder simply by reporting their annual income to the IRS.  The NPCT would be progressive because low-income people spend almost all of their money on the basic necessities of life which would be taxed at a lower rate than luxury goods.

The NPCT would be good for economic growth.  Taxes on capital gains and business incomes could be reduced.  Basic necessities would be taxed at low rates.  Food, housing, and non-luxury transportation will be consumed because people have to have those things.  The wealthy would continue to spend money on their play toys even if those things are taxed more highly.

Savings will be encouraged, resulting in less consumer debt.  In the next recession, people would have the means to continue supporting themselves and we would have less need for public assistance. 

Hoover Institution: Bruce Thornton: Illiberal Liberalism

Source:Hoover Institution

Reading right-wingers about people they call "elitist Democrats," or wine and cheese Democrats, people whom I call wine and cheese progressives, the wing of the Democratic Party that believes that anyone who didn't graduate from an Ivy League, other Northeastern university or a school on the west coast is not real bright and needs big government to take care of them, is a little difficult, if I were to take their arguments seriously (good luck with that).  On the other hand, I can just enjoy the unintentional humor and hypocrisy of it and think to myself, "Damn, these guys (including Ann Coulter) have a serious set of balls, balls that you could use to play basketball."  If you've ever been hit in the head with a basketball, you know that it it hurts like hell.  It's like getting punched by a world heavyweight champion boxer.  I would only recommend it for my worst enemy.

Seriously, these are the people who run the country.  They have the money to do it or they serve and are in business to protect the people who do it.  They get on Democrats for elitism when they are constantly putting down organized labor, government workers, and blue collar workers, trying to transfer wealth from the middle class to the upper class and looking for ways to increase taxes on low-income Americans.

You have elitist Democrats like the Kennedy Family and others and you have elitist Republicans like the Bush Family and many others.  You know what they have in common.  They all have a hell of a lot of money and have a hard time communicating with working class people who aren't Ivy League educated, who drink beer, eat chicken wings, hot dogs and french fries.  And go bowling, which I guess is a sin amongst yuppy snobs and elitists on both sides of the isle.  They have a hard time communicating with people who work very hard for a living and spend their free time doing working class activities like going to ball games.

Hearing someone like Bruce Thornton, who may or may not be a right-wing snob himself, using the same language that other right-wingers use when they talk about elitist Democrats, is like trying to swallow a mouth full of horse shit.  It's a little tough to swallow, even if you had to in order to survive because there was nothing else to eat, that is if you take them seriously.  If you don't, you can just laugh it off and make fun of them.