Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Since it's a week when many people are traveling and not web surfing, I'm taking it a bit easy myself with the writing.

For today's thought-provoking entry, allow me to refer you to this excellent 3-minute commentary by George Mason University economist Russ Roberts:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17625560

News sources are reporting this morning that former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed, apparently shot during a larger attack just after a rally for Ms. Bhutto, now dead at the age of 54.

It appears there was a bomb which may have been used to force Bhutto to move, and then she was apparently shot multiple times. The initial reports also imply that the explosion may have been after the shooting, with the murderer blowing himself up.

There really are no "good guys" in Pakistani politics, just as it's difficult to find a good guy in any middle eastern country. However, Bhutto represented the country's best chance for something that looked like Democracy and an open mind toward western ideas (including being a role model for diminishing the subjugation of women in that part of the world.)

The primary suspects for this murder by pundits outside Pakistan will be supporters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda who, as Ambassador Marc Ginsberg said, recognized that Bhutto "constitutes the most important threat to extremism in the country. She's a democrat. She's western-oriented. She's an ally of the United States."

But within Pakistan, suspicion is focused on elements of the Musharraf government due to people knowing of a letter that Bhutto sent to Musharraf in which Bhutto said that people within his government want to kill her. It is more than possible that people whose political power or wealth is dependent on President Musharraf could have wanted her dead. Indeed, Stratfor believes that the "assassination could not have been possible without the jihadists being enabled by elements within the government" out of fear of Bhutto's party having a very strong showing in the upcoming elections on January 8th.

It's critical now, for the stability of the country, that Musharraf begin an investigation, preferably by as credible an independent investigative person or group which can be found or created in Pakistan. This investigation must not only find the organizers of the murder, but must try them publicly and then execute them...preferably also publicly...including (or especially) if those people work for the ISI or some other arm of the government's intelligence or security apparatus.

While Musharraf and his allies might be tempted to see Bhutto's death as good news, that would be a serious error on their part. Instead, they must take up her mantle and work publicly and aggressively to bring Bhutto's democratic ideals to fruition within the country. Anything else is a recipe for continuing dissent in the country, leaving the opening for Islamic extremists to increase their military and political power. It represents Edmund Burke's warning "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." While Musharraf is not easily placed in the category of "good men", he is the closest we have today.

In the meantime, it is likely that Bhutto supporters and maybe supporters of Nawaz Sharif, the other opposition leader and former Prime Minister will boycott the upcoming elections to cast further doubt on his legitimacy. Interestingly, although Bhutto's death is getting all the press, several people were killed at a pro-Sharif rally in Rawalpindi, the same town where Bhutto was killed just four hours later, apparently by supporters of Musharraf. Sharif was only about a mile away, on his way to the rally, so this could have been intended as an attempt to eliminate both of Musharraf's electoral competitors within 24 hours of each other. This event makes it appear that much more likely that Musharraf either had a hand in, or at least was powerless to prevent, these attacks.

This is leading to unrest in the streets of Pakistan, with pro-Democracy supporters verbally attacking Musharraf and leading the country toward further instability...leaving just the sort of chaotic situation in which extremism thrives. It would not be very surprising to see civilian protesters fighting government forces in the streets in coming days. It will be necessary for the US to force Musharraf to give up some or all power but it will also require a credible figure to assume that power, with the most credible such person now dead. As we see unrest (and hopefully not civil war), we must not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Beyond the importance of this for Pakistan, it is critical for the US. Pakistan is possibly the most important country in our "War on Terror", not least because of its border with Afghanistan and it's wild-west-like frontier territories which are currently a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives and training camps. Musharraf has played patty-cake with those people for too long, in part because he did not feel politically strong enough to take them on. Thus, creating political unity (or some Pakistani version of it) which can give the government enough confidence to fight our mutual enemies is of utmost importance to the safety of Americans.

[Domestically speaking, this event can have some important effects on the upcoming primaries, with the candidates who argue that they have strong international and anti-terrorism credentials such as Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain, using this to attack opponents who have no substantial experience in these areas...such as Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.]

Bhutto is dead, but her recent political legacy must live on. The security of Americans as well as the quality of life for all Pakistanis depends on it.

I've learned that frequently the best compromise is one in which both sides end up somewhat unhappy. And if I'm party to such a compromise, I suppose I have to hope that I'm a bit less unhappy than the other guy.

Such is the case with the massive $555 billion omnibus spending bill signed by President Bush on Wednesday.

Bush complained about $10 billion contained in 9,800 earmarks, but at the end of the day Bush was the clear political winner of this battle.

The bill, which was a compilation of eleven spending bills and additional war funding, included money for the Iraq war without attaching a time line, or as some call it, a date for surrender.

A rather strange statement followed Bush's signature:

“This legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.”

I don't quite know what this means, although it sounds disturbingly like the single biggest failure of George W. Bush's presidency: Signing the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act while acknowledging that he believed it to be unconstitutional.

As if the NetRoots won't be unhappy enough about funding the war without surrender, the Democrat Congress abandoned Charlie Rangel's "Mother of All Tax Hikes" (OK, he said "reforms", not "hikes", but my version is more accurate) to send to the President a bill which put a one-year "freeze" on the Alternative Minimum Tax ("AMT"), keeping it from hitting an additional 20 million taxpayers on their 2007 returns.

It is pleasantly astonishing to see Democrats be completely unable to use their majorities in both houses of Congress to pass tax hikes and surrenders despite a president with very low approval ratings.

While I don't think there's any chance of the GOP taking back either chamber in the next election, this type of result should give Republican presidential candidates some hope...and give voters a hint of a reason to vote to put a Republican in the White House.

Indeed, Americans have shown relatively consistent wisdom by keeping our government divided for most of the past generation. If there's anything we should learn from our modern history, from FDR to George W. Bush, it's that we don't want one party to control the executive and legislative branches simultaneously. For that reason, I continue to believe (though I wouldn't bet a lot on it) that a Republican will win the White House, but will not have any coattails. And that's fine with me, although I would prefer the Democrats not gain a veto-proof majority throughout Congress.

For today's reading, allow me to offer you this article by David Harsanyi, the Denver Post's "token conservative" (although I think he's closer to libertarian) and author of a book with an important subject and a very long title:
Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children

Here's the article:
Hope still abides amid the doom and gloom, David Harsanyi, Denver Post, 12/24/07
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7801170

With all the negativity and apprehension engulfing this nation, it's a wonder any of us can be thankful this year.

Today's compliant American citizen trembles in fear at the slightest sign of peril.

You know, if Osama doesn't get us, Chinese toys certainly will.

All this doom and gloom has manifested in the rise of populist politics, an unfortunate movement that seizes on every morsel of bad news it can exploit for political power.

You, on the other hand, are left to sit, curled up in the corner, agonizing over the proliferation of Mountain Dew, Mexican gardeners after your job, lead in your lipstick and polycarbonate bottles — whatever that is.

Now, no one can deny that we're a nation dealing with a multitude of crucial problems. We are, after all, home to Miss South Carolina, Dennis Kucinich and "Dancing with the Stars."

Still, it's no reason to panic.

For instance, there is no doubt an economic slowdown is on the horizon — as it always is. (Rest assured that every Chicken Little will take credit for seeing it coming.)

As of today, however, unemployment remains at near-historic lows. Nationally, wages rose 3.8 percent — a point in front of inflation — this past year. The current economic expansion is now in its 74th month, which, according to free-market economist Larry Kudlow, is 17 months longer than the average growth since World War II.

Economic prosperity is a rather dull story, though. Clearly, the country would rather wring its germ-infested hands at the wondrous disaster that is the sisters Spears. How can we ignore such golden fodder?

No study is yet available on how many women voluntarily shave their heads and attack paparazzi — though one is surely on the way.

Yet, as the holier-than-thous sprint for microphones, ready to relay all the gory details of our moral collapse, one might point out that teenage pregnancies, though they rose slightly this past year, had fallen for 14 consecutive years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Criminal violence — despite all those first-person, super-violent video games and scary movies — has also declined dramatically since 1994.

In the end, prosperity means more than the ability to watch pop stars descend into madness — although no one can deny its entertainment value. It also means security, comfort and enhanced health.

The harbinger of economic collapse has been the tear-jerky subprime mortgage meltdown. Yet, with all the trouble, it might be worth remembering that nearly 70 percent of Americans own the home they live in. This fact brings stability, both economic and personal.

And many of those folks will be paying off every last mortgage payment.

According to the CDC, a child born in the United States should expect to live to around 78 years — if he or she meticulously avoids secondhand smoke and trans fats. A new high, life expectancy has risen from a mere 69 years in 1955.

Then again, you may view this as simply horrible news once you get your first glimpse of your kid's college tuition. Unlike 20 years ago, nearly every kid seems to go to college.

Ostensibly, this means kids will be better educated and less ignorant. Hopefully, they will live even longer and more prosperous lives.

Just avoid red meat, mercury-infested fish and caffeine, etc. (though this could all change next week).

Apparently, if they're to live forever, they will also be miserable.

But I'm not sure why we're so unhappy. Perhaps change and uncertainly will always make us fearful of the future.

Let's hope those college kids will be more resistant to scary studies and populist shock and awe.

Through it all, there's only one thing they should remember: Try as you may, no one gets out alive.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

To all my Christian friends (and anyone else willing to accept it), I wish you a very merry Christmas.

re "Taxes Are Reassessed in Housing Slump as Prices Drop" (NY Times, 12/23/07)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/23tax.html?hp

To the editor:

It is exceptionally rare to find a government which deals with declining tax revenue by any method other than trying to scare its citizens into raising tax rates. From “rapists will go free” to “children will starve in the streets”, taxpayers are (or should be) tired of hearing these variations on the same greedy theme.

Declines in home values will no doubt bring another coda, this time something like “If you don’t agree to higher property tax rates to compensate the county for declining home values, we will have to fire teachers and security guards and cut back on school lunches”. In other words, they’ll threaten to make our kids stupid, unsafe, and hungry unless we give them more of our money rather than their finding the sorts of efficiencies that every business and family must make in tough economic times.

Although it’s been a long time since we’ve had a real downturn in the housing market, the funding of public education based on property values has always been a vulnerability. Instead of just coughing up more money for more dismal public school performance, this economic event should be a catalyst for school choice, including changing the system of funding public education.