Headline: âDems offer redistricting plan to counter governor's plan, GOP says it leaves Legislature with too much power.â
For those of you who donât follow left coast politics I will make this brief. Currently elected officials get to draw the lines on their congressional district. The current state population shows roughly a 55/45 split between Democrats and Republicans. The legislature is 70/30 split because of the way districts are carved out of the state. The current legislature enjoyed a 20-25% approval rating BEFORE the last election and EVERY incumbent won re-election.
Arnold has had a hard time pushing his agenda through the Democrat heavy legislature. So Arnold proposed that maybe we need a better way to choose those people. In November the PEOPLE are going to vote on a state amendment that will drastically (and hopefully) change the way districts are redrawn and take it out of the hand of elected officials. The Democrats sensing danger labeled Arnold a Nazi at first, denounce the special election second, and now offer their own plan to fix a problem they caused.
I have lived in California for many years and I really sense that the Dems are running scared after they saw the proposals and special elections were going to actually happen. Despite the negative press and howling on against this election this proposal really has support on the left and the right. You can tell they are scared because they are offering a counter proposal because the if measure passes the Dems are likely to lose absolute control and have to bargain with and REPRESENT a large minority of California citizens. One legislature admits as much in the article. Good show Arnold!
#1
I rather have whatever party is in control Gerrymander draw the district lines, when the courts get involved it goes beyond Gerrymandering into something only a topologist can love.
#2
I would hope they redistrict so that there is approximately a 50 50 split between dems and GOP. Then those damned pieces of furniture in Sacto would actually have to please a constituency.
Maybe we could vote out some of the communists and the "Lets become part of Mexico" crowd.
You need a minimum amount of Republicans to have a contested legislature. Caliphornia is a one party state by Gerrymander, Massachusetts by choice.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
06/29/2005 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
LOL, Mrs. D.
That smarts. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/29/2005 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Rather than a 50%/%50 split I'd like them to actually push it as close to 100% as possible. Let folks be lumped together with like thinking voters so they can get a politician to represent their interests rather than sticking 49% of the country being represented by someone they are oppossed to.
#7
I'd prefer a looser, non-geographic system. After all, where you live/work is probably the least important thing when it comes to representation. How about if they had an open system, with people able to give their proxy (as it were) to whomever thay like. If that person gets enough proxies, s/he's a representative of that group.
#9
I think a non-geographic repesentation system won't work. It will lead to the most well known candidate getting the lion's share of votes. Then marginal, but well organized, minorities can then elect the candidate of their choice in the remaining districts.
I'd like to see an objective criteria used for redistricting (e.g. equal population, contiguous districts such that the all districts minimize the total circumference) and allow any citizen, not just the dominant political party, to submit district maps. May the best proposal win.
Posted by: ed ||
06/29/2005 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#1
It's a good article but I have a different conclusion. I think this shows the power of the constant barage of anti-American propaganda in the media and Hollywierd. If, after 9/11 the press had written favorably about America and how it saved Europe and should to be supported to provide the same freedoms to Iraq, many of these same people would be at their dinner parties touting that line. America has failed on the media front, to get our message of freedom and equality out. It has failed so badly that many of these same people have been forced into mental gymnastics to side with tyrants to keep up their anti-America stance.
Hitler was able to turn a whole population against the Jews by using propaganda. Communists were able to exterminate untold numbers in the name of "world peace" and the sheep baaa'd along to the pied pipers tune - because it was vogue to do so, and for no other reason.
He's right that Anti-Americanism is fueled by little individual slights. Our current dislike of French, Germans and others is fueled by their slights against us. But in the end, we really don't dislike the people in these countries, we do not cheer for the fact that the French have all but fallen to the Islamists. We hope the Germans can rid themselves of their cripling socialist systems and massive unemployment. We do not wish Europe ill will.
The bottom line is that it is vogue to poo-pooh the Americans for the same reason it is vogue to poo-pooh Bush. If I think the leader of the free-world is an idiot - then I am better than he. What a simple way to elevate my own self-opinion.
What we need to do is to educate people about the impact of self-righteous cynicism, how to rise above it. Shaming and blaming does not make for a better world. One is not better than others, simply by proclaiming to be. Looking for someone to blame is the ultimate cop-out in dealing with a problem. It just allows the shamer to absolve himself of guilt, without any real action on his part. Thus the appeal of anti-Americanism or blaming the Jewish cabal. Oh look, they are starving in Nigeria and North Korea, they are raping and murdering people in Iraq. We need to stop it. Ah, we. But who is we? You mean me? Ok, I'll get up and wag my fingers at someone who is to blame. That's so much easier than to come up with real and concrete ideas of how to stop it.
#2
Hitler was able to turn a whole population against the Jews by using propaganda.
Nope. The German people already hated the Jews and needed only a gentle nudge. See Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners".
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/29/2005 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Be that as it may, it is highly unlikely that the pogroms would have started without Hitler's propaganda machine talking it to a whole new level - as well as drowing out and silencing the voices of reason with Jew-lover, a slur, any good Klansmand from our deep south can well understand the power of. If Jews are blacks are "dirty" and you love them, then you must be dirty too. Hmph...I can look down on you too! But I digress.
Besides, it kind of makes my point. Someone to blame. No need to put forth reasonable plans - just blame the Jews - if we could get rid of them, it would all go away. How much easier than a real platform of reform that would require some personal sacrifice.
#4
to futher make my point...look at Europe. What they need to reform is some personal sacrifice and leaders who will help them make tough choices to give up some of the freebies at the trough and implement longer work hours. But instead, Chirac and Schroeder ride the "blame the Americans" horse. And why shouldn't they? It works.
But if people were educated to see that blaming others is just a cheap trick by politicians that should be immediately rejected - the people would benefit.
/rant over - sorry for the excess use of bandwidth.
Read Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels" for a detailed study of the intellectual roots of the Nazi horrors. It was not caused by mere political propaganda. It was not out of the blue. As a bonus, Peikoff describes how the liberal establishment in the US is in love with the same set of theories that led to the national-socialist variant of collectivism.
#6
I've never been an Any Ryan fan, but I think Peikoff only illustrates my point. I will agree that in Germany the fire was long set and it needed only a match to light it. I will agree that many of the conditions exist in America today.
But by Peikoff's argument, these plebes rely on The State to tell them what to think. Hilter's propaganda machine did just that. Only instead of self-sacrifice, it offered the sacrifice of the Jews. Hitler just chose an "other" as the Islamists do today.
The poor Islamists, so steeped in shame and blame, had trouble deciding who was an infidel - so many different countries, so many different chiefs - so rather than fight each other to define infidel, they settled on the generic "others" How clever. How non-offensive. It can mean whatever your little band of followers in your part of the world want it too. KILL THE OTHERS!
I would argue further that what has saved our nation from what is basically human nature, was education, through the church - to forgo the blame game and to embrace the principals of charity, forgiveness and removing the log from your own eye before pointing out the speck in anothers. You do not need to believe in the divinity of Christ to understand that Christian principals provide a chance for individuals to appeal to a higher ideals than to the lower ones of revenge and blame. And please don't cite examples of Salem Witchcraft or gay bashing or other examples of Christian principals gone wrong. The idea that you extend charity and forgiveness to individuals does not mean surrender. It means you look inward first to be sure that you, as an individual, have done what you can to help others, before you blame them for your woes. It provides for each individual to feel responsible to help by giving charity - not for The State to do so for you.
It doesn't matter to me how it's done, as much as the fact that we need to teach people to recognize when leaders are attempting to use shaming and blaming rather than real solutions.
Every day, the National Examiner litters my driveway with their paper with headlines that scream, Bush bad, Bush to blame, Everyone Agrees Bush is the Devil. It's almost comical. And yet, due to many of the reasons that Peikoff cites, people are happy to leave it at that. Social Security would be fine if it wasn't for Bush..Clinton...or Satan. How much easier than examining real solutions.
#7
I have not read either of the two books cited above, and it is possible 2b could benefit from reading either or both.
He does have it right on the money, however, when it comes to blaming someone else. There was another post I read today about Muslims blaming someone - everyone - else...in fact, it was from an Iraqi blog linked to some article.
I myself blame all Left Leaning Liberal Losers, since they are blaming Bush and all the ultra-reactionary, neo-conservative, right-wing, bible-thumpers. See? Name calling helps, too!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/29/2005 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#8
bobby :-) lol! we must resist the urge to mock those lefty losers even if they are responsible for all our woes!
In a case from Kentucky, a fractured Supreme Court ruled Monday that local officials can't promote their favorite religion by loudly nailing the Ten Commandments to the courthouse wall. Yet in a case from Texas, the same court said it's OK if a private group donates the Commandments to what has become a diverse array of monuments around the state Capitol.
Confused? That's understandable. The two decisions produced eight opinions on separation of church and state from the nine justices.
Even so, the most important message - and a significant one - is this: Those holding the levers of power may not use government as a vehicle to advance their religion. Whether a particular display on public property is constitutional depends on its purpose and the motives of those who put it there. In the context of U.S. history, that makes sense.
The court slapped down two Kentucky counties where, despite a later smokescreen, officials were clearly motivated by religious activism in posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. "Government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion," the high court said, repeating the vital principle underlying most of its church-state decisions for a half-century.
There's good reason for that, rooted in the nation's earliest days. Though many settlers came here seeking freedom of religion for themselves, more than a few saw nothing wrong in oppressing those with differing beliefs. In Massachusetts, religious dissenters were literally driven into the wilderness. Two of them founded what became Rhode Island, one of the first colonies to offer true religious freedom. Against that backdrop, and with a concern for minimizing power struggles over religion, the Founders wrote the ban on "establishment of religion" into the Bill of Rights.
At the same time, the nation has a long history of tolerating casual references to religion and religious figures - particularly within a broader context. At the Supreme Court itself, Moses holding tablets representing the commandments looks down on the justices at work. But Moses is just one of 18 historic lawgivers portrayed, including Confucius and Mohammed.
Thus Justice Stephen Breyer, part of the majority that rejected the Kentucky displays, also provided the critical fifth vote allowing a donated Ten Commandments monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. It was part of a Fraternal Order of Eagles campaign in 1961 against juvenile delinquency.
Breyer rationalized that while the Commandments are clearly religious in nature, they are among 38 historic and cultural markers around the Capitol - and had gone unchallenged for nearly two generations. Most important, he called the Texas example a borderline case, signaling that those crusading for more direct government involvement in religion won't get his support.
Even in its divisions, the court redrew the important boundary: Government doesn't have to reject religion, but it can't be used as an instrument of religion. Given the expectation of changes to come on the court, this is unlikely to be its final word on exactly where that boundary lies.
#1
It's all about context, therefore the Supremes have set themselves up as art critics. The question they left open is "How many non-Judeochristian items does it take in an art installation to sufficiently 'dilute' the impact of the Ten Commandments?"
#2
A very careful middle path needs to be taken here. For every unfair effort to supress religion in the US, there is, and has in past been many more, efforts to foist religion on the unwilling. I, for one, want a judge who follows the *law*, rather than one who either does what his shaman says, or what his "heart" says. "He is innocent because he attends my church", is just as offensive as "he is guilty because his kind are always guilty."
Written By -> Fred Barnes -> executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A DEATH wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994.
The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning.
At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire."
This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day," Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire."
Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security.
Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years. In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. Granted, McGovern's stance on national security wasn't the only factor in his loss, but it played a part. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily.
In 1988, the elder George Bush won after Democrat Michael Dukakis undermined his own credibility as a potential commander in chief by riding in a tank wearing silly-looking headgear. But in 1992, things were different.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore avoided the national security trap. Clinton was hawkish toward China (later he mellowed) and Gore had voted for the Gulf war as a senator in 1991. They won. In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. In 2000, national security was a secondary issue and Al Gore won the popular vote and Democrats gained 5 Senate seats.
In 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats. Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq.
John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure.
Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.
#4
Perhaps this is a subset of Barnes' argument, but I don't know if the issue is so much "Republicans, strong; Democrats, weak; ugh" as the Republicans have consistently put forth a strategy for dealing with our nation's enemies be it Soviet or Islamic. You can agree or disagree with that strategy, but it's there open for debate. In the past 30 years I've yet to see a Democrat state a coherent articulation of what states/parties pose a threat to this country and what should be done about it. If you don't think the nation needs a dozen aircraft carriers, then state why, but this "It'll be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber" crap is not the stuff of a responsible political party that should entrusted with the safety of this great land.
#5
Hm, this is just about fear. You'll get support for anything, if you just can make people believe in some danger. Note, that it's much more likely to be killed by drinking, smoking, driving or handguns than by some terrorist. Note as well, that fighting terrorism by giving them more reason to view you as an enemy is kind of stupid and counterproductive. In a democracy you just cannot have complete control, which is what you would need to eradicate terrorism completely. Freedom comes at a price, i.e. it's not for free. Remember the ancestors laying the foundation we're standing on today ... at a cost - by the way, not just at their own cost, but also the cost of native inhabitants and colonialists. You're giving it away for an illusion of more security, but in reality you're wasting so much time and energy that could be better invested in thinking of the situation of the very person, that just happens to be next to you this very moment. Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid. That's less expensive, less dangerous and less populistic, i.e. you won't win an election on taking such an intelligent approach. Why? Because, the majority of citizens is guided by their guts and if they're made to believe they've reason to have fear... then you don't win by any clever arguments, but by appealing to the guts. That's the game. Give people little time to discuss and think freely - give them a tight schedule and good blinders and then control the guts.
#7
Remember the ancestors laying the foundation we're standing on today ... at a cost - by the way, not just at their own cost, but also the cost of native inhabitants and colonialists
#9
No, 2b, you misunderstand him/her. We must UNDERSTAND those who wish to kill us because we're American/Christian/Jewish/heck, even Muslim! So, instead of taking the fight to them, we must hold Dr. Phil moments to understand them!
Posted by: BA ||
06/29/2005 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
ahh...ok. I understand that as long as they kill him first, we're cool.
Posted by: BA ||
06/29/2005 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid.
You are making my point for me. You object, you criticize, but you offer no alternatives, no policies. I am asking you, Democratic Policy Maker to enumerate:
1. The things we are doing to make them attack us. And that means all of the attacks: Munich, Beirut, Nairobi, Achille Lauro, 9/11, Bali, Madrid, et al. This started way before GWB.
2. What would you do differently to take away this "justification?" Cut and run from Iraq is not sufficient because numerous attacks took place well before Iraq.
#13
vew's view: You're giving it away for an illusion of more security, but in reality you're wasting so much time and energy that could be better invested in thinking of the situation of the very person, that just happens to be next to you this very moment. Take them away the reasons to attack, take them away the justification for their doings - you'd need to understand them first though, before you're capable to do so, I'm afraid. That's less expensive, less dangerous and less populistic, i.e. you won't win an election on taking such an intelligent approach. Why? Because, the majority of citizens is guided by their guts and if they're made to believe they've reason to have fear... then you don't win by any clever arguments, but by appealing to the guts. That's the game. Give people little time to discuss and think freely - give them a tight schedule and good blinders and then control the guts.
vew has a gut full of mung spouts
/eeninglish second langoouage
Posted by: Red Dog ||
06/29/2005 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#14
and i bet she's never voted.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
06/29/2005 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Some poor parent actually paid good money to fill vew's head with utter crap. No more connection to how the real, ugly world works than nancy pelosi. How long do you thing such foolishness would stop any jihadist in the same room with her? Many of us have stood on the walls prepared to do violence to those who would do our country harm, only to discover the schools we were protected were turning our such mush. Worse than must, actually delusionally dangerous twits! Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the rot is really is deep!
Posted by: Just About Enough! ||
06/29/2005 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
#18
darn speel check, ...out....mush...
Posted by: Just About Enough! ||
06/29/2005 23:26 Comments ||
Top||
#19
aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhh!
Posted by: Just About Enough! ||
06/29/2005 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
Why the furor, mostly unfounded, over the mistreatment of the Quran at Guantanamo? The terrorists are stepping up their murderous campaign aganist flesh and blood people worldwide. That's the outrage.
By Deroy Murdock
For all the grief America is suffering over Guantanamo, U.S. soldiers there might as well have flushed 1,001 Qurans down 1,001 toilets -- live on Al-Jazeera TV.
Newsweek's May 15 retraction of its false and deadly Quran-in-the-can story has worked as well as a severed brake line in slowing calls by Democrats (and some wobbly Republicans) to padlock the terrorist detention facility.
Illinois' Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, infamously compared Gitmo to the Soviet gulag, Nazi concentration camps and the Khmer Rouge's killing fields, despite the base's paucity of firing squads, gas chambers or neatly stacked human skulls.
Bushophobes should squirt some of their copious bile on those who esteem devout Muslims far less than do Gitmo's guards. Leftists shriek when a GI forgets to don gloves before touching a Quran, but snore when Taliban, al-Qaida and other terrorists blast mosques to bits.
Associated Press reports, among others, document how militant Islamists treat Shiite shrines with all the deference the SS showed synagogues in the 1940s.
⢠June 1, 2005: A suicide bomber blasted the funeral of Mullah Abdul Fayaz, a moderate cleric, at his eponymous mosque in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He killed Kabul's police chief and 20 others, while wounding 50.
⢠Jan. 20, 2005: A suicide bomber exploded inside the Ghocha Park Mosque in Sheberghan, injuring 21.
⢠June 30, 2003: An earlier bombing at Fayaz's mosque injured 16.
To date, colleagues of the Gitmo Boys have killed 21 and wounded 89 in Afghan mosque bombings.
Iraq's picture is even bloodier. Examples:
⢠May 23, 2005: A car bomb at a Baghdad mosque killed two and wounded 22, including 11 children.
⢠March 10, 2005: A suicide bomber detonated himself during a funeral at a Mosul mosque, murdering 47 people and injuring at least 101.
⢠Feb. 18, 2005: On Ashoura, Shiites' holiest day, homicide bombers attacked two Baghdad mosques, killing 25 and injuring 30.
⢠Feb. 18, 2005: A car bomb killed eight and hurt 10 at an Iskandariyah mosque.
⢠Aug. 26, 2004: Mortar shells pummeled a Najaf mosque, killing 27 and injuring 63.
⢠March 2, 2004: Homicide bombers, mortars and hidden explosives at mosques in Baghdad and Karbala killed 181 and wounded 573 Ashoura worshippers.
⢠Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb outside a Najaf mosque killed 85 and injured 140.
Add the 386 killed and 970 injured in Iraq to the Afghan figures above: The terrorist pals of Guantanamo's al-Qaida and Taliban residents have butchered 407 Muslims and injured 1,059 more in these mosque attacks.
After crying for these murdered and maimed Muslims, weep for the Qurans destroyed. At worst, a May 27 Pentagon probe revealed, U.S. personnel at Guantanamo mistreated Qurans on 13 occasions, only five deliberately, notwithstanding requirements that soldiers "handle the Quran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art."
In one "atrocity," a Quran was stacked atop another Quran on a TV set. Interrogators twice "either touched or stood over" the Quran during questioning. Most regrettably, a soldier relieved himself outdoors last March 25. The breeze shifted towards a cellblock, and an adjacent air duct splattered his urine onto a detainee's nearby Quran and uniform. The soldier was reprimanded and reassigned to gate-guard duty.
Compare this to the Islamofascist explosions that reduce Allah's words to ashes.
Muslim detainees mishandled the Quran 15 times, the Pentagon reports. One tried to annoy guards by tearing up his Quran and stuffing its pages into -- get this -- a toilet.
Despite detainees' disrespect for these Qurans -- furnished by U.S. taxpayers, not the Book of the Month Club -- America remains this story's perceived villain.
When will President Bush go on the offense to reverse this misperception?
The U.S. economy, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, depends on the kindness of strangers. Each year Americans consume more than they produce, creating a trade deficit that floods the world with dollars. Fortunately, strangers from abroad like to reinvest those dollars in the USA.
The cycle works wonders. Despite the chronic overspending, American consumers have suffered few adverse consequences. In fact, all the money coming from abroad to buy Treasury bills and corporate bonds has held down the cost of borrowing.
But last week, Americans got a sense of how foreign investment can also have a downside. The China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), 70% owned by the Chinese government, offered to buy Unocal, a 115-year-old U.S. energy producer.
The $18.5 billion bid raises a number of thorny policy questions. Among them: Would ceding control of a major oil company to a communist government-controlled entity pose a national security threat? And if the bid were to be blocked, would China retaliate against U.S. companies seeking to expand in China? These questions would be considered by a special national security panel if Unocal accepted the CNOOC bid.
Ultimately, however, the proposed acquisition might best be viewed as a wake-up call to U.S. government leaders, who've done little to prepare the American economy for the tidal wave of competition presented by the rising economies of Asia, particularly China.
China has a population four times the size of the United States' and an economy that's growing two to three times as fast. Even when it's not buying oil and gas companies, it's buying oil and gas - and other resources - driving up the cost to U.S. consumers. Demand from China is one reason oil is about $60 a barrel.
Less spendthrift U.S. practices could moderate the impact of China's ascendancy. Last year, the United States ran a $160 billion trade deficit with China. That gave the Chinese a lot of dollars with which to buy pieces of American capitalism - and to raise questions like those the Unocal bid raises.
Cutting the trade deficit involves revamping tax policies and other steps to encourage Americans to save more and spend less. That might sound tough. But in the long run, it's less likely to cause pain than continued reliance on the kindness of strangers.
#1
In a word - Crap. There are multiple reasons why the USA can maintain a substantial trade deficit over extended periods and 'kindness' is not one of them. The most obvious is that capital generates a better return in the USA than alternate destinations.
#2
I run a constant deficit with Publix. The only way I can cover it is by working. Which maybe can give a clue to how the US covers the trade deficit..... by creating wealth.
#3
This is gonna sound odd to some folks, but one of the major problems facing the world is a glut of savings, capital is being formed at a rate much faster than it can be efficiently invested.
#4
Ship's right, there is way too much liquidity (money looking for investments) out there and as I noted the other day risk has been discounted to zero. I read today at Bloomberg that German interest rates are lower than at any time since Bismark (was chancellor). Economic systems have a way of self-correcting which leads me to think we are going to see an unprecedented level of capital destruction.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
