Posted on 01/09/2007 8:27:45 AM PST by jmc813
I’m greatly encouraged by the lengthy, indignant responses by prominent scare-mongers Joe Farah and Jerome Corsi to my on-air and on-blog denunciation (“Shame on Demagogues for Exploiting ‘North American Union’!”, 12/28) of their self-promoting paranoia regarding an alleged conspiracy to merge the US, Canada and Mexico. The defensive tone of their commentary suggests that these two have been appropriately embarrassed: Farah, in particular, dramatically deescalated his rhetoric.
While previous commentary on WorldNetDaily prominently and regularly featured the noun “plot” in defining this non-issue, his answer to my purposefully harsh attack omits that key word entirely and uses language in a vastly more responsible and rational style. If I can push an influential (and often insightful) journalist like Farah back toward reasoned debate and the mainstream, then I’ve already succeeded in my chief goal: to prevent conservatives from following self-interested Pied Pipers off a cliff into conspiracist cuckoo land.
I’m particularly gratified at the way that Farah worded his “Daily Poll” on this issue. He posed the question: “What do you make of the talk about the North American Union?” and offered only two alternatives (out of nine) that agreed with the lunatic alarmists on the subject. Those two choices declared: “The evidence keeps mounting. When will people stop being in denial?” and “Plans for a union are an absolute reality, and anyone who can’t see concerted attacks on U.S. sovereignty is blind.” Please note that in declaring “the evidence keeps mounting,” this response never specifies what, exactly this “evidence” is supposed to prove. Similarly, the statement that “plans for a union are an absolute reality” never suggests who it is who is making those plans. If the plans (not “plots” this time) for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such shcemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.
Amazingly enough, Farah himself supports this reassuring perspective in his muddled attempt to defend his previous hysteria. He identifies one Robert Pastor “as the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union.” Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University who was an enthusiastic supporter (and informal advisor) to John Kerry’s Presidential juggernaut--- and who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration, or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership. If an addled academic with zero power in the government and no clout whatever with the current administration is “the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union” do those plans really sound so menacing and dire and imminent?
Moreover, even Professor Pastor (in an interview with NAU demagogue-in-chief Jerome Corsi, as quoted by Farah) specifically denies any desire for a North American Union. “Each of the proposals I have laid out represent (sic) more than just small steps,” Pastor proclaimed. “But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.” (Italics added)
I know that paranoids and conspiracy connoisseurs will seize on the last three words “at this stage” and scream, “Aha! The dreaded Pastor—the evil academic who’s the architect of the whole diabolical scheme – is suggesting at some later stage it WILL be plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate a North American Union!”
But please, friends, consider this: if even the lefty professor who is considered the most dangerous plotter and visionary on the prospect of US-Mexican-Canadian merger explicitly denies any interest whatever in even contemplating that scheme at this stage, does it really make any sense—any sense at all – to frighten the public into believing that there is a current, powerful mass movement on behalf of such plans?
That’s the essence of my impassioned concern with the demagoguery on this subject: by focusing concern on a non-existent threat, people like Farah and Corsi take attention away from the very real dangers posed by the liberal ideologues who have taken over both houses of Congress.
There are open, undeniable, widely supported plans from the Democratic leadership to cripple the country in our war against Islamo-Nazis, to undermine our security agencies in the name of “constitutional rights,” to raise taxes, to punish productivity, to grow government, to undermine the traditional family, to nationalize health care, to force us all out of our cars (and onto useless mass transit) and to push through precisely the sort of immigration policies that most conservatives will absolutely hate. These plans demand a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States. (“PREMEDIATED MERGER: How Leaders are Stealthily Transforming USA into North American Union” reads one typical and current Farah headline.)
This is a fateful moment for the conservative moment that Barry Goldwater launched and that Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and, yes, George W. Bush led to some significant triumphs. For the first time since Clinton first came to power 14 years ago, we are definitely in opposition --- coming out of our “thumpin’” in the 2006 elections, all the momentum and energy in Washington has currently shifted to the Democratic side. The next few months will help to determine whether Republicans and conservatives will fight the good fight over issues that matter or dissipate all chance of a return to power through in-fighting, defeatism and self-marginalization. Given the stakes involved with some of the current battles in Washington and around the world, how can any grownup, responsible activist justify focusing on black-helicopter-style threats like the border-dissolving, sovereignty-ending North American Union –- which no elected leaders of administration officials have ever endorsed?
Where, in the past, have conservatives succeeded in building majorities by concentrating on “secret plans” and “high level plots” by their fellow Republicans?
And this brings me to the unfortunate Jerome Corsi, who felt the need in his response to my scorn to bring up some long-ago misunderstanding between us in which he believed I had charged him with anti-Semitism. As I communicated to Corsi in a telephone conversation, I did not recall making that charge on the air and I still don’t believe I ever attacked him in that manner. If I had even hinted at Jew-hatred on Corsi’s part I was willing to apologize, I said.
But now that he’s brought up the long-dead matter once again, I went to the trouble of looking up some of his controversial (and profoundly embarrassing) internet postings from FreeRepublic.com that were publicized in 2004. One of them (03/04/2004) attacked “John F**ing Commie Kerry” as follows: “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? (sic). He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”
Given the fact that neither Kerry nor his wife (either wife, for that matter) ever practiced any form of Judaism (or “Judi-asm”, which might be a form of Judi worship), and given the fact that Theresa Heinz Kerry has never had any connection whatever to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, and given the fact that Kerry himself has been a well-advertised, professing Catholic all his life, doesn’t Corsi’s snide little comment about Kerry’s “reverting” to the faith from which his paternal grandparents converted, give off unmistakable, fetid whiffs of anti-Semitic obsession?
In the same series of comments he also wrote of the beloved and revered Pope John Paul II: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press” (03/03/2003) and “We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.” (12/16/2002).
And now this same angry, venomous, irresponsible figure wants to be taken seriously when he warns of the looming, desperate danger of North American Union. He insists that he is utterly disinterested and selfless in promoting this grand conspiracy theory--- but then the final line of his posting gives the lie to this preposterous pose. That line announces about Mr. Corsi: “He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.”
I have no desire whatever to help him promote his latest book which is why I won’t invite him as a guest to debate these issues on my radio show. If he wants to call in (with other members of the public) to make whatever points he chooses to make, he’s welcome to do so on the one national talk show that identifies itself as “Your Daily Dose of Debate” and we’ll move him to the front of the caller line. The phone number, Mr. Corsi (toll free, by the way) is 1-800-955-1776.
And concerning his challenge to me to debate him publicly and formally over his poisonous obsession over phantom dangers, I’ve never in my life turned away from a rhetorical challenge, and I’m not about to do so now. If Corsi wants a debate (over a non-issue that I don’t believe is even worthy of serious discussion) I’m willing to join him if he arranges an appropriate venue and I can participate without incurring debilitating travel or personal expense.
If this sort of confrontation can flush out fringe-figures like Jerome Corsi from the dank, turgid conspiracist fever-swamps he chooses to inhabit, it may perform an important hygienic purpose in returning the conservative movement to the robust health it needs for the serious battles that lie ahead.
Nonsense! I disagree with Medved on immigration and related issues, but to anyone who has read any of his books (particularly Hollywood vs. America), there is no doubting Medved's bonafides.
Lol. Yeah, there's a real test. The very fact that you offer it up as an economics test is evidence of what little you know of economics. The Laffer Curve is something bandied about by those who get their economic education from political magazines.
It's actually known as an elasticity curve in economics, and in the case of Laffer's Curve there is no way to assign shape or valuation to it. Moreover if you arbitrarily give it a shape, say a regular elipse, there is no way to know where you are on the curve. It's simply an intuitive device for debating political policy and has no analytical usefulness.
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm
Art Laffer didn't work as a Reagan economist as I recall, and the Reagan economists weren't relying on his 'Curve' for their program. Reagan's tax cuts were designed to promote economic growth, not to increase tax receipts. The goal of the program was to break out of the stagnation that had plagued the '70s, and which had proved impervious to Keynesian demand stimulus.
The Reagan economists didn't believe that lowering marginal rates would result in an increased yield to the Treasury. What they did predict was that economic growth would recoup a good portion of each tax dollar lost due to the cuts- dynamic effects- which is what happened. About 2/3 of each dollar cut was recouped through growth, in line with their predictions. The other third was to be addressed through spending cuts, which Tip O'Neill reneged upon. This idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is something you will find refuted by Reagan's own economists.
Yes, you tried to do just that, I remember. And now you are stalking me, from thread to thread, as the notion strikes you, dragging an old lie about, spamming it to thread after thread, which is against FR's posting rules.
What is your source for this?
These 25 "Disinformation Rules" are all over the Internet, and they are not usually attributed to Medved. One attribution I found is this:
Posted to newsgroups alt.conspiracy.new-world-order and alt.illuminati on April 28, 1998 by wildfire@ionet.netWritten by an anonymous poster to conspiracy newsgroups. That sounds more likely.
Yes there is. First you don't understand the pivotal role of his intellectual foundations...which are definitely Hard core Left. Secondly you fail to recognize or admit his in-the-tank celebrations of Goldman-Sachs control of White House economic thinking...conflating their self-interest into assertions of "national interest." And third, he is definitely suspect even where you assert his "strength" in media...i.e., his approvals of less-than-safe Hollywood material, such as the Harry Potter series. And he could have been a hell of a lot more harsh about Brokeback Mountain. He's a moral wuss, afraid of the PC Police.
Conclusion (at least with respect to those two issues): Two thumbs down, for Michael Medved....
From Doctor Laffer's bio:
Laffer was a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of his two terms (1981-1989). He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Reagan/Bush Finance Committee in 1984 and was a founding member of the Reagan Executive Advisory Committee for the presidential race of 1980. Dr. Laffer has been a professor at Pepperdine University, University of Southern California and University of Chicago. While he was a professor at USC, Dr. Laffer held the status as the Charles B. Thornton Professor of Business Economics from 1976-1984. During the years 1972 to 1977, Dr. Laffer was a consultant to Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz. He was the first to hold the title of Chief Economist at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Mr. Shultz from October 1970 to July 1972.Dr. Laffer received a BA in economics from Yale University in 1963. He received an MBA and a PhD in economics from Stanford University in 1965 and 1971 respectively."
And in response to the rest of your unwarranted and rather defensive apologia (I don't think there need be any...the only issue was that the rest of the team, particularly Stockman didn't "get it"). As for Ronald Reagan public self-identification, note how he enthusiastically referred to the Laffer curve in his Flynt, Michigan speech.
...as I recall, and the Reagan economists weren't relying on his 'Curve' for their program. Reagan's tax cuts were designed to promote economic growth, not to increase tax receipts. The goal of the program was to break out of the stagnation that had plagued the '70s, and which had proved impervious to Keynesian demand stimulus.
You make my case. Some clearly weren't on board. Stockman, as head of the OMB clearly wasn't. What a drip.
The Reagan economists didn't believe that lowering marginal rates would result in an increased yield to the Treasury.
Actually, I think Paul Craig Roberts did, among a number of others. But he left after only two years as well. A lot of the team was unhappy at the "deal" made with Tip O'Neill.
I just wanted to make sure that the man had a minimal knowledge of economic theory. I'm curious that you ran across this thread and didn't (a) address the absurd notion that the EU was constructed and conceived in secret and (b) answer the question I posed in post #152.
Medved is a "soft Conservative", like ben Stein has become.
OK, stop right there. I know where you're coming from. Never miiiiind...
Nutburger with cheese and onions...
...on a sesame bun...
Apparently it's okay for you to accuse others of having an indifference to the facts:
But there are some here, to whom facts just don't matter at all.
but then you run crying for help when you get reminded of your own posting history.
Sure you did.
The economists who worked for President Reagan were members of the Council of Economic Advisers, part of the Executive branch. Martin Feldstein, Martin Anderson, William Niskanen were among them. Laffer ran a private consulting firm during the Reagan years. His work at OMB, which you highlighted, occurred during Nixon.
Paul Craig Roberts doesn't support the idea that reducing rates increases the yield to the Treasury. I asked him this very question myself, and he wrote a piece clarifying his position. It was posted online, and you can find it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts52.html
The greatest myth of all about Reaganomics is that the administration made a "Laffer-curve" forecast that the tax rate reductions would pay for themselves. Reagan’s budget deficits are regarded as proof that supply-side economics failed.
Martin Anderson as well devotes considerable time to debunking the claim that Laffer-curve forecasts were ever considered by the Reagan economic team, of which he was a senior member. He derides it as "the myth of the supply-siders". You can find the relevant passage in his book Revolution.
Anderson, Roberts, et al would certainly have revised their opinion of the Laffer Curve predicting an increased yield to the Treasury if the increased yield had happened. It didn't, except in the limited case of capitals gains rate reductions. Once stimulus effects of deficit spending, the business cycle, and other such factors are accounted for we find that each dollar of cuts regained 60 some cents through growth. An impressive feat compared to the predictions of static analysis, but hardly the "cuts pay for themselves" claim. A breakdown of the effect of the Reagan tax program was published by Lawrence Lindsey, The Growth Experiment.
I don't know that the plan for the EU was secret. But it may not have been widely discussed outside of mostly commercial circles, at least at first. One of the European Union's main architects was French bureaucrat Jean Monnet. He and his associates were proposing an EU before its first iteration as the European Coal and Steel Community of 1952. It's of interest that Britain declined to join the ECSC on the grounds of national sovereignty.
The ECSC evolved into the European Economic Community, the EEC or Common Market, in 1958. The European Community in 1967. The European Monetary System and European Parlaiment in 1979. The EU in 1992. It developed over time, but the seeds were planted by Monnet and his contemporaries when they first began with economic integration. Here's a pertinent Monnet quote long preceding even the ECSC:
In 1943, Monnet became a member of the National Liberation Committee, the French government in exile in Algiers. During a meeting on 5 August 1943, Monnet declared to the Committee: "There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..."
There have been any number of articles on regional trade blocs centered around common currencies. Kenichi Ohmae was arguing that nation states are irrelevant in Borderless World back around 1990. That someone would propose a North American Union is hardly new. Is it being done? It's certainly open for discussion. It's a policy desired by people who see it as producing economic advantage to the Americas. It's hardly the tinfoil idea Medved characterizes it to be.
That someone would propose a North American Union is hardly new.
Anyone can propose anything about anything. That doesn't mean it's happening.
I'm sorry, I just can't prove there aren't pixies in the garden.
And it was you, who keep attempting to twist Kindleberger's words, to suit your position. But then, that's just how you are. Pity that.......
I didn't say he was working for the Administration. A lot of times the Advisers are more important to policy than the "working" economists. His bio pretty clearly indicates his influential role.
The reason I highlighted the Nixon-era role he had as CEA Chief Economist was that he worked for George Schultz, a behind-the-scenes guy who Reagan ultimately named as Secretary of State to replace Haig. The connection indicates influence that is pivotal.
As to Paul Craig Roberts, on Revenue Growth models, I believe you are right, that he has taken the agnostic postion on revenues, indeed note especially here My Time With Supply Side Economics:
President Reagan’s economic program was contained in a document called A Program for Economic Recovery, published on February 18, 1981. Contrary to many uninformed academic economists’ assertions, the administration did not base its program on a “Laffer curve” forecast that the tax cut would pay for itself. The administration decided not to fight the battle for a dynamic revenue forecast and used the standard static revenue forecasting still in use today. Tables in the document show that the administration assumed that every dollar of tax cut would result in a dollar of lost revenue.
Taking the dollar for dollar approach, and treating the steep inflation declines as lost revenue are a bit on the Keynsian side. And empirically, the Revenues did grow in a stellar way, despite these cautious assumptions. I think I got the contrary notion aboujt Roberts' view from one of his articles for the Wall Street Journal and National Review, "Reagan Changed the World".
Once stimulus effects of deficit spending, the business cycle, and other such factors are accounted for we find that each dollar of cuts regained 60 some cents through growth. An impressive feat compared to the predictions of static analysis, but hardly the "cuts pay for themselves" claim.
I am not sure that it was claimed that the effects had to be a complete restoration. As you clearly admit, a 60% recovery is a lot better than the administration's own politically cautious assumption that the cuts were a complete dollar-for-dollar loss.
The net growth history of the experiment (and it was an experiment then) with Reagonmics as it came to be called is encouraging. The term of course was intended to be disparagement, but as it proceeded to succeed....it was raised high as a banner amongst us conservatives. Some pertinent program history was well described in Wikipedia's rendition, which might help the youngsters on this thread. This history helps clarify a mixed and complicated policy:
Part of what Reagan implemented was in fact not supply side economics, but rather his own version of Keynesianism. Reagan advocated initiating deep tax cuts and simultaneous increases in military spending, while at the same time claiming that the Federal deficit would be erased. Critics argued that while Keynesian economics promoted the idea of consumers (including the poorest) creating jobs by increasing the demand for goods and services, Reaganomics relied on giving more money to producers by giving tax cuts especially to the wealthiest citizens, who would then create jobs that would somehow find a demand. This type of economic theory has also been referred to derisively as "trickle-down economics."The belief of Reaganomics that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves was influenced by the Laffer curve, a theoretical taxation model that was particularly in vogue among some American conservatives during the 1970s. Arthur Laffer's model predicts that excessive tax rates actually reduce potential tax revenues, by lowering the incentive to produce. The rise, rather than fall, in government deficits during the Reagan era caused many to question the validity of the Laffer curve. In addition, although the Laffer curve was used to justify tax cuts, its main emphasis was on showing how to maximize government revenues through fiscal policy; because this conflicted with the aim of conservatives to reduce spending as well as revenues, the Laffer curve has more recently been deemphasized by conservatives in recent years. Nonetheless, Federal Government tax revenues did increase significantly following the tax cuts of the Reagan years; it was the dramatic increase in spending that produced the budget deficits of that era.
Before Reagan's election, Reaganomics was considered extreme by the liberal wing of the Republican Party. While running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980. George H. W. Bush had derided Reaganomics as "voodoo economics", a term that held currency long after the recession ended. Similarly, in 1976, Gerald Ford had severely criticized Reagan's proposal to turn back a large part of the Federal budget to the states. After the Reagan election, however, most Republicans endorsed Reaganomics, including Bush, who became Reagan's Vice President.
Support for Reaganomics A study from the Cato Institute, which supports many of the premises that lie behind Reaganomics) said:
* Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. ([http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html source])
Laffer and Reagan were vindicated by the results of the Reagan tax cuts. Real per capita GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.6% from 1981 to 1989, after languishing at a 1.6% rate during the Carter years of 1977 - 1981. Citation: Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1789 - Present." Economic History Services, March 2004, URL : http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/
Reagan's supply-side model changed the paradigm of government involvement in the economy. Keynesian economists were at a loss to explain why the aggregate demand increases of the 1970's did not result in improved national economic performance. Likewise, they could not explain how to reverse the shift in the Phillips curve. The Reagan-Laffer-Volcker-Milton Friedman model of improving economic performance by reducing government involvement in the economy has since gained wide currency. President Clinton ran as a "New Democrat": fiscally conservative and trade-friendly. Likewise, national governments worldwide are implementing low-rate flat tax revenue structures, with impressive results.
Indeed, many are.
Wish we were.
Apparently you did not read the Vatican's critical evaluation of the series, and perhaps you should be more aware.
As Michael O'Brien observed when researching the debate:
It is interesting to note that the truly reasonable arguments are all on the side of caution regarding the Potter series. . By contrast, the pro-Harry articles lack any serious reflection on the issues involved. Their opinions can generally be boiled down to this: "Now, now, let's not get paranoid here. Isn't it wonderful to see kids enthusiastic about reading?" That is no argument at all, because there are a great many things to be cautious about in our present secular culture (calm vigilance is not necessarily paranoia), and children are frequently enthusiastic about unhealthy interests.
Of course, we know which side Medved comes down on. He indeed does one of his typical rants to quash concern as paranoic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.