Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary

Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated his warning that such cuts would lead to a “demoralized and hollow force.” One of his deputies has called the cuts the equivalent of “self-castration.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently warned that the cuts will “destroy” the Department of Defense.'

'In nominal terms, sequestration is not even a cut; it would see nonwar military spending grow by about 10 percent from today, as opposed to the 18 percent the administration wants.'

'Adjusting for the CBO’s predictions for inflation, sequestration would allow the military budget to remain almost flat. The process would leave the 2021 Pentagon with purchasing power equivalent to what it had in 2006, leaving out the wars. That would be a bigger budget in real terms than what the U.S. spent on the military at the height of the Cold War.'

'Because the Budget Control Act leaves war spending uncapped, Congress can effectively take defense programs off the books, evading caps by declaring them to be war-related. Already, the defense appropriation for 2012 includes that gimmick, and it can be expected to continue as long as the Budget Control Act is in place and there are wars to fund.'

'sequestration will not occur until January 2013' ... 'with the president’s signature, Congress can always undo previously passed legislation, including the Budget Control Act and sequestration'

'If the military were to agree to come up with a 2013 defense budget that spends $492 billion or less — the amount it would have after sequestration — it could avoid sequestration while allowing defense officials to choose which programs to cut. Under this scenario, the administration could ask Congress to alter the Budget Control Act to spread the planned savings over time, avoiding a sudden bite.

The extra time could be put to good use identifying not just which programs to cut, but how to reform strategy accordingly. Such a strategic shift could allow the Pentagon to achieve savings equivalent to sequestration while avoiding its worst features, and might even improve American security in the process. Unfortunately, given the cultivated hysteria about defense sequestration, those are discussions that we are unlikely to have.'

NCLB: Perspectives on the Law | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary

NCLB: Perspectives on the Law | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The idea is that a single standard will keep states from "gaming" accountability. But this assumes that those who would be held accountable won't gut standards at the federal level, an irrational assumption.'

Should Christians Ask: Who Would Jesus Vote For? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Should Christians Ask: Who Would Jesus Vote For? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'It's not that every profession of faith is false. But offering political rewards for personal testimonies encourages politicians to lie.'

Campaign Finance 'Reform' Has Failed Nation, Voters | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary

Campaign Finance 'Reform' Has Failed Nation, Voters | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Moreover, there is little evidence that money has much influence on policy-makers. Political scientists have found that contributions explain little about lawmaking once ideology, party and constituency are accounted for. One scholarly study of lobbying concluded that "the direct correlation between money and outcomes that so many political scientists have sought simply is not there."'

'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars also have found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less-informed voters.

In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.'

The Ongoing War On Computing; Legacy Players Trying To Control The Uncontrollable | Techdirt

The Ongoing War On Computing; Legacy Players Trying To Control The Uncontrollable | Techdirt: 'If I turned up and said "well, everyone knows that wheels are good and right, but have you noticed that every single bank robber has four wheels on his car when he drives away from the bank robbery? Can't we do something about this?", the answer would of course be "no". Because we don't know how to make a wheel that is still generally useful for legitimate wheel applications but useless to bad guys. And we can all see that the general benefits of wheels are so profound that we'd be foolish to risk them in a foolish errand to stop bank robberies by changing wheels. Even if there were an /epidemic/ of bank robberies, even if society were on the verge of collapse thanks to bank robberies, no-one would think that wheels were the right place to start solving our problems.
[[762.0]] But. If I were to show up in that same body to say that I had absolute proof that hands-free phones were making cars dangerous, and I said, "I would like you to pass a law that says it's illegal to put a hands-free phone in a car", the regulator might say "Yeah, I'd take your point, we'd do that". And we might disagree about whether or not this is a good idea, or whether or not my evidence made sense, but very few of us would say "well, once you take the hands-free phones out of the car, they stop being cars". We understand that we can keep cars cars even if we remove features from them. Cars are special purpose, at least in comparison to wheels, and all that the addition of a hands-free phone does is add one more feature to an already-specialized technology. In fact, there's that heuristic that we can apply here -- special-purpose technologies are complex. And you can remove features from them without doing fundamental disfiguring violence to their underlying utility.
[[816.5]] This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network -- the PC and the Internet. Because if you think of computer software as a feature, that is a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that's running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature, then this heuristic leads you to think that you could reasonably say, "make me a computer that doesn't run spreadsheets", and that it would be no more of an attack on computing than "make me a car without a hands-free phone" is an attack on cars. And if you think of protocols and sites as features of the network, then saying "fix the Internet so that it doesn't run BitTorrent", or "fix the Internet so that thepiratebay.org no longer resolves", then it sounds a lot like "change the sound of busy signals", or "take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network", and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.

The end result, then, is that any attempt to pass these kinds of laws really results not in building a task-specific computing system or application, but in deliberately crippling a general purpose machine -- and that's kind of crazy for all sorts of reasons.'

'In fact, the proponents of SOPA, the Motion Picture Association of America, circulated a memo, citing research that SOPA would probably work, because it uses the same measures as are used in Syria, China, and Uzbekistan, and they argued that these measures are effective in those countries, and so they would work in America, too!'

'But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters.'

Barack Obama, Ron Paul Lead in Campaign Cash From Military Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Barack Obama, Ron Paul Lead in Campaign Cash From Military Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets: 'On the Republican side of the aisle, Paul has collected the most contributions from active military members and DoD employees. Paul, who stresses a non-interventionist approach on the campaign trail, has received about $32,100 from these sources, according to the Center's research -- nearly as much as Obama.

Paul's haul is nearly eight times larger than that of his GOP rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who has said that he favors bringing troops home from Afghanistan "as soon as the generals think it's okay."'

People say that Ron Paul is weak on defense but why do the military support him so much? They must agree with him!

Expert: WI’s budget repair begets flat property taxes

Expert: WI’s budget repair begets flat property taxes: 'The WTA, a nonpartisan organization that studies tax issues, attributes the “nearly flat” trend to the budget changes pushed through by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature, which cut aid to local governments and set stricter limits on property tax increases.'

'“What we’re seeing this year with all the limits ratcheted down, we’re probably going to see the lowest increase in property taxes really in a long, long time,” said Dale Knapp, the WTA’s research director.'

In Africa, using ants and termites to increase crop yields - CSMonitor.com

In Africa, using ants and termites to increase crop yields - CSMonitor.com: 'The findings show that termites and ants improve soil fertility in drylands by digging tunnels that allow plants greater access to water.

The research also found that termites provide plants additional nutrients because they increase the amount of nitrogen contained in soil. This is done through nitrogen-heavy bacteria in their stomachs, which allows them to transmit nitrogen into soil through their saliva and feces.

Land that was treated with ants and termites showed a 36 percent increase in the amount of wheat produced.'

Ten Illusions Shattered in 2011 | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Ten Illusions Shattered in 2011 | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan destroyed any remaining illusion that Afghanistan is necessary for al-Qaeda. Now come reports that the organization in Pakistan has been largely destroyed and elements are moving to Africa—without an American or NATO occupation of Pakistan.'

'Until last year, Libya was highlighted as a great success story. Dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi traded his nuclear program for acceptance by the West. However, the moment he was vulnerable, the West launched a campaign of regime change under cover of humanitarian intervention. The North Koreans gleefully took note of Qaddafi’s foolish decision to negotiate. No other government in America’s gun sites is likely to yield the one sure deterrent to attack.'

'Last year, however, the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea demonstrated that it was more monarchy than communist dictatorship.'

'There was a time when liberal Democrats purported to be advocates of civil liberties and international peace. President Barack Obama cultivated this image when he ran in 2008. Although candidate Obama said little of note on these issues, he let voters extrapolate from his early and prescient opposition to the Iraq war.

However, after taking office Obama largely adopted the policies of the Bush administration. Other than promising to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, he sounded little different than his predecessor. But the prison remains open, and he twice increased troops levels in Afghanistan.

Last year, the president started his own war against Libya, where even his own defense secretary admitted that the United States had no vital interests at stake. Moreover, the conflict was ostentatiously illegal, criticized by administration legal officials. The president also sought to extend America’s military presence in Iraq, putting him at odds with his original opposition to the war. By the end of 2011, it was hard to tell the difference between neoconservatives and liberal hawks.'

'During the Cold War, conservative presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan tended to be practical realists. All took diplomatic steps to resolve confrontations with communist regimes. All were criticized by the Right for choosing peace.

That commitment to prudence has largely disappeared from Republican leadership ranks. This year only Ron Paul, Gary Johnson (who has been excluded from most of the debates) and Jon Huntsman (to a limited degree) resisted the neoconservative perpetual-war consensus. Über-hawks like Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are not recognizable as traditional conservatives.'

How the Mideast Was Lost | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary

How the Mideast Was Lost | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Not surprisingly, the United States has taken a far more pro-active stance against dictatorial regimes that were hostile to Washington than those considered friends—however corrupt and authoritarian those friends might be. American condemnation of the dictator of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was noticeably milder than the denunciations of Gaddafi, Assad, and the clerical regime in Iran. And Washington’s criticism of the Saudi-backed monarchy in Bahrain barely reached the level of perfunctory.'

'How Muslim populations react to Washington’s double standard, though, is another matter. De facto U.S. support of Saleh, for example, did not save his regime—he has conceded to step down in February. And the Obama administration’s conveniently selective stance regarding democracy and human rights in Muslim countries certainly has done nothing to refurbish America’s tattered image with aggrieved populations.'

'Given its record, the United States has little credibility with Muslim populations as a champion of freedom and democracy.'