Combat! - Page 227 of 406 - A blog by Dan Brooks

What is Paul Ryan’s budget for?

By Dan Brooks in Politics versus Government March 13, 2013 0 Comment

I will never stop loving this photograph.

Paul Ryan has released his new budget plan, and it is not well received. The editorial board of the Washington Post starts with the good ideas to be found therein, “since that is the shortest list.” At the New Yorker, John Cassidy all but calls it a work of fantasy. It balances the budget by 2023. It fixes the top marginal income tax rate at 25%. To reconcile these two conflicting and unrequested achievements, it A) forecasts much higher economic growth over the next ten years than any reputable economists predict, and B) repeals Obamacare while keeping the tax increases on high earners and $700 billion in cuts to Medicare that pay for it. You might remember that $700 billion as an aspect of Obamacare that Ryan and Mitt Romney relentlessly criticized in the 2012 election; now Ryan likes it. In fact, you might remember the whole budget as one of the most unpopular ideas of last year. Which begs the question: why is he proposing it again?

Bloomberg soda ban struck down

By Dan Brooks in inevitability of death March 12, 2013 8 Comments

Judge Milton A. Tingling, if that is his real name, has invalidated New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large, sugary beverages, calling the law “arbitrary and capricious.” Capricious, yes: milkshakes were exempted; 20-ounce coffees maybe became illegal once you put sugar in them; 7-11 didn’t count because it’s a grocery store, while bodegas did. But arbitrary? Approximately one million studies have linked soft drink consumption to obesity, diabetes and a raft of other health problems afflicting Americans in increasing numbers. Sugary drinks are bad for you. We just can’t go making laws about them.

Anonymous NY Post source calls TSA screenings “make-believe”

By Dan Brooks in War on Terror March 11, 2013 1 Comment

Fat

On Friday, the Transportation Security Administration announced that an undercover agent passed through screening at Newark airport with a fake bomb. Don’t worry—a TSA official said the agency runs these kinds of tests often, and screeners fail to detect fake bombs “all the time.” Meanwhile, the New York Post continues its tradition of responsible journalism with this first-person account from an anonymous Newark TSA screener. Or it’s Ian Mohr typing with a sheriff’s badge stuck to his monitor. That’s the beauty of an anonymous tell-all; we just don’t know. We also don’t know whether the fake bomb the TSA brought through Newark was The Blair Witch Project or something of their own making. Huh? Am I right? I’d like to remind you that this blog is free.

Friday links! A problem like Korea edition

By Dan Brooks in Friday Links March 8, 2013 2 Comments

Can you imagine how weird it is to be the guy in the United States government—possibly there is a name for this position—in charge of dealing with North Korea? On one hand, they are clearly not a serious country; their economy alternates between collapse and starvation, and they can’t afford electricity at night. On the other hand, they keep threatening nuclear war. Perhaps most infuriatingly, their threats come in a form that insists everyone else is threatening them. It’s a weird combination of delusion, incompetence and crowing arrogance, and it is frustrating. How do you solve a problem like Korea? That’s the worst part: you ignore it. You don’t even get the pleasure of seeing the weirdo son of the weirdo son of the weirdo dictator get his comeuppance. You just have to let being Kim Jong Un be its own punishment. Today is Friday, and the high ground sucks. Fortunately, our decadent American lifestyle provides the internet to distract us. Won’t you ignore belligerence with me?

Holder tells Senate that justification for drone strikes will remain secret

By Dan Brooks in Uncategorized March 7, 2013 11 Comments

Attorney General Eric Holder is more likable if you refer to him as Crime Dog Eric Holder.

Yesterday, Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there is an airtight legal justification for using drone strikes to kill American citizens abroad, but it’s secret. Also, the Obama administration might use drones domestically. Holder was understandably reticent about when that second scenario might happen, prompting Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to pose two hypotheticals. Suspected terrorist “sitting in a cafe?” No, Holder believes that in that situation, a domestic drone strike would be unconstitutional. Suspected terrorist “pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon?” Yeah, Holder would light that dude up. It is fun that Ted Cruz maybe thinks of the Pentagon as the seat of US government. Otherwise, this exchange was dispiriting in the extreme.