w1ld wrote:
] ] The Skeptics contend that Bush's foreign policy in his
] ] second term will turn out to be more cautious and less
] ] belligerent than his first, if not by choice, then by
] ] compulsion.

I strongly agree with this conclusion.

I've heard Syria and Iran tossed around on several occasions in the past week by people who are cock sure that they know what they are talking about. I think both suggestions are outlandish. Syria? Who cares about Syria! And Iran? The Iranian nuke question was resolved by Bush's election. There is no need for further action.

The constraints are immense. The danger in Iraq has put tremendous pressure on Military recruiting. They are going to have to increase salaries and benefits, and costs.

We have a perfect economic storm brewing. Our entitlement programs are totally unsustainable. Our private sector debts are tremendous and they are coming due, and as the Baby Boomers mature they are going to being pulling money out of the market. Our diplomatic strategy on Iraq has loped a huge amount of federal debt onto the pile. The expense of our healthcare system is impacting our international competitiveness. Meanwhile, all Al'Q could muster for this election was a video tape.

Bold action is required domestically, not internationally. I'm glad that Bush is focusing first on Social Security. That is one of our most critical problems. My opinion is that we need both the right and left solutions applied here and I hope we see them.

The reds are right: We need to create more incentives for people to save money. People can earn interest as individuals more effectively then the government can, as the government cannot invest the retirement savings without controlling the economy. Getting this money out of a dead weight trust fund and into the economy will stimulate growth both of the economy and the fund.

But the blues are also right: We cannot continue to operate a wealth redistribution system that redistributes wealth from poor people to rich people. It makes sense to increase the retirement age. And if there are no safeguards to prevent investment losses from crushing people, then there is no point. Its social security, not central retirement planning.

After thats done Bush promises to tackle taxes. I'm not convinced that the complexity of the tax system is truly the pox on America that these people claim, and this isn't an attempt to shift the tax burden. They've already shifted it some towards the middle. Its also not as pressing as healthcare and medicade. I wish they've tackle that, but as yet they don't seem to have a proposal. (I agree that tort law needs fixing, but I also agree that this won't fix the healthcare problem.)

In general, I don't feel like round 2 is going to result in a lot of new military adventures. We've got quite enough on the plate as things stand.

RE: Foreign Policy: Four More Years