Making our allies stronger is a good deal so long as they stay allies. It would be nice if each gadget were equipped with a remote "kill" switch to prevent blowback, but we're gonna take our chances.
In any event, what I really see here is some big time corporate welfare, and I hope it gets reported as such. Let's say you're a US company, Consolidated Army Gizmos. CAG is having a down year, somehow cut out of the Iraq deal. But CAG has a long history of dealing with Israel, on a limited basis. Suddenly, Israel has a bucket of money, and most of that bucket has to be poured into the US.
This is how it looks:
US policy destabilizes a region. Destability boosts military hardware purchases. US government can't pay CAG et al to simply deliver military hardware. US pays other countries to buy it. Middleman Israel gets $10 billion for funneling the $20 billion to US companies. CAG pays dividends and exec bonuses!!
Meanwhile, the math and science money for education stays stuck in "authorization" mode, not "appropriation". That's the difference between a goverment promise and a government check.
posted by quash @ 3:42 PM
5 Comments:
Thanks, I can go on with my life again.
I'm 100% with you on the education dollars vs defense dollars. Call me a cynic, but I don't think that's going to change appreciably no matter who's elected (executive or legislative).
As for Israel, I'm all in favor of them vs Iran, or some of the other crazies. I don't even object to the "corporate welfare" issue, to some extent, as long as it serves some ultimate defense purpose. The cost of doing business. As they say, it's always about the money. That, too, ain't gonna change. (I've got other issues with Israel, or any other nation, that claims "God given rights" that belong only to them, but that's far off from your topic.)
So, my acquiesence on the economic side of this type of deal sells out my liberal inclinations, but, what else is new. That's one reason I'm without a political home.
By the way, is "destability" a word?
The funding issues won't change unless there is a high profile candidate who makes it a big deal (not gonna happen) or the media gets all over it (it could happen). Inasmuch as the NYT helped lead us into war in Iraq I'm not gonna hold my breath.
If you have liberal inclinations for sale and feel politically homeless you should check out the Cato link --->
Ah, you caught the "destability" thing. I was really hoping I'd created it but another blogger actually titled piece that in January of this year. While googling that tidbit this morning I also found a reference from a Soviet physics journal in 1973 titled "Some Methods of Identifying and Describing the Effect of Deformation Destability in Rheonomic Media".
Wow.
The Cato philosophy sounds great.
You come across as quite an idealist. I consider myself somewhere between a pragmatist and a cynic. Just the fact that you take time to blog (when you feel like it) indicates that you at least feel it's worth the effort. So, my question is . . . is it really?
Is there any real hope for libertarianism, or any more independent-type view in the political spectrum? And if so, when? In our lifetime? Our children's? The older I get, the more disillusioned I become. Scratch that -- the fewer illusions I have.
Now, obviously, that's not completely true, or I wouldn't be wasting my time reading stuff like this. But it feels that way an overwhelming part of the time. And this is not to say that I'm not happy, or that I don't think we live in a great country. I am, and I do. I just don't think that our political system is good for much other than maintaining the status quo (which is actually a pretty good status).
I would guess that you would say that you have to stand up for what you believe, and I've got no beef with that. It just seems that, considering the likelihood of success (change), there are other things more worthy of my time.
Or maybe I'm just lazy.
Oh, and just 'cuz someone else said it, that doesn't mean it's a word.
"You keep using that word . . . I do not think it means what you think it means."
Destability is inconceivable.
Wouldn't go so far as to label myself an idealist, and I don't go out and spit in the wind. But much as I like the status quo I think we can do better. Libertarianism as a whole is a bit pie in the sky. But there are pieces I am very fond of: open immigration, no drug war, shrunken govt. Ron Paul is running on the GOP ticket but he's a dyed in the wool Libertarian. He will get to air some Libertarian points in front of audiences that would never hear such arguments. All good third parties get absorbed bit by bit. That is my hope.
OK. That sounds reasonable. Whether or not I agree with you on all points is not, to me, the issue, as much as is your point of view reasonable, which I think it is.
So I'll save my argumentativenessism for another day.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home