Child Soldiers: Central to the following argument is the following equation: A 12 year old Liberian is more mature than an 18 year old American. In terms of self sufficiency, political sophistication, and emotional maturity the child soldiers of the third world are less children than adults. The 18 year olds volunteering for our armed services are more children than adults. If child soldiers are a bad idea let's clean our own house first. Our troops could easily comprise adults in middle age with no loss in effectiveness and with concrete advantages to the armed services and our nation. I refuse to submit my children to the fray until I'm dead and gone in the service of my nation and freedom. A test of the merits of armed conflict should include the willingness of those who support that conflict to risk their personal safety in its prosecution. After the 50 somethings then sacrifice the 40 somethings and so on down. Let elders lead by example. And let children work to prevent armed conflict and the loss of their parents assisted by adults who know the difference between imperial adventure and just war.

Donald Regan is dead. In his eighties, this former Chairman of Merrill Lynch and Ronald Reagan's Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff, lost none of the clarity of thought he demonstrated as he and his president moved decisively to reduce federal income taxes from nosebleed levels ( top rate > 70% ). In a bald act of copyright infringement I retransmit here Mr Regan's editorial published in the WSJ after his passing. May he find peace.

A Reaganomic 'GPS'

By DONALD T. REGAN

The recent debate over President Bush's tax proposal had so many echoes of the Reagan era that I could almost recite the parts of the various players from memory. Amid all the clamor, few have stepped back -- as President Reagan did in 1981 -- and asked three basic questions: Where are we, where do we need to go, and how are we going to get there? Unfortunately, we have no GPS that could pinpoint where we are and how to navigate from here to there.

The 1981 tax debate occurred when the economy had serious ills. It was entangled in a strange phenomenon known as stagflation -- a combination of slow growth and inflation that could not be accounted for by the dominant Keynesian economic theory of the time. Keynesian economists believed that slow growth -- or no growth -- was the cure for inflation, but somehow both were happening at the same time. Tax cuts, it was feared, would only create more deficits, stimulate more inflation and raise interest rates -- already in the high teens -- further into the stratosphere.

Ronald Reagan, however, was not troubled by this state of affairs. To answer the question of where we were, he recognized that growth was held back by high tax rates and excessive regulation. As for where we needed to go, his answer was that the first priority was economic growth; other problems would take care of themselves as long as the Federal Reserve maintained a steady and moderate rate of monetary expansion. And his policy for how we were going to get there was breathtakingly simple -- the government was going to get off the back of the American people by taxing and regulating less.

The opponents of Mr. Reagan's program were saying many of the same things they said in response to the Bush tax cut proposal: We can't cut taxes, it will increase inflation and raise interest rates; deficits are already too high; tax cuts will only deprive the government of the revenues it requires to meet the many needs of the American people.

Thanks to President Reagan, we know a lot more today, although it seems that many in Congress didn't get the memo. We know that tax cuts spur economic growth by improving incentives to work and invest and by making more money available for new ventures and small business, where the real job growth occurs in our economy. There are many examples of this in recent history, from the Kennedy tax cuts of 1962, through the Reagan cuts of 1981 and 1986. We also know that deficits do not cause inflation or cause interest rates to rise. Although the deficits during the Reagan period were higher (as a percentage of gross domestic product) than the deficits projected today, interest rates declined after the Reagan tax plan was adopted.

As I interpret Mr. Bush's tax program, I think I see that he has tried to answer the same three questions that President Reagan always kept in mind -- even though the economic problems he faces are different. We are not in a period of inflation. Quite the opposite; inflation and interest rates are at historic lows. We are, however, in the midst of a slow economic recovery, in which jobs are not coming back as quickly as we might have hoped. In fact, the whole economy is changing right before our eyes, and will continue to change. Unskilled or semiskilled jobs are going overseas, and jobs involving knowledge and skill -- technology, specialized services, finance, health care, energy, entertainment and communications -- are the growth areas here at home.

The Bush tax program is ideally suited to address this new economy. Whereas Mr. Reagan saw generalized economic growth as essential, the Bush plan has both a stimulative component to start the engine and a long-term component to advance the process of moving our economy into the new areas of future growth. That's what the dividend tax cut and the cut in the capital gains rate are all about. As companies increasingly pay out dividends, and pay less of a penalty for making profits, investors will have funds to invest in new ventures. Our economy, already the most dynamic in the world, will continue to change and grow in response to the growing skills of the American people, particularly in the service sector.

President Bush should also aim to extend his tax-relief vision beyond financial transactions such as dividends and capital gains. In a knowledge economy, education and learning are real factors of production. Americans who add to their knowledge and skills are, then, adding to the stock of the nation's productive assets. The president's next tax bill should recognize this with tax credits for individuals that match the investment tax credits that have been available to business. That's a program that assesses where we are, where we need to go, and how we are going to get there.

Mullah Ashcroft testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. No doubt fresh from a prayer meeting in his office at Justice, the Mullah stated that: "No major terror attack has occurred on American soil since September 11th." While outlining the specific accomplishments in the fight against the evildoers he pointed to the following: "Over 1,000 new and redirected FBI agents dedicated to counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence; 250 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys; and 32 new Joint Terrorism Task Forces".

These guys are good, but do they have email yet?

Few remember the nuclear physicist, Lee Wen Ho, Ph.D. who was taken down by the FBI as a spy for the PRC while at Los Alamos. Lee really did download files onto his notebook and take them home to work on (former CIA head Woolsey kept classified files on his home computer after leaving government service; not a problem). After nine months in solitary confinement (with the light on) FBI dropped 58 of 59 felony counts, Lee copped to one felony and was released for time served. The Mullah wouldn't comment on the investigation and prosecution of Lee since "There are lots of times, especially in international intelligence security matters, when we don't release things because it's not in the national interest to do so,".

No fooling. If folks understood just how lame the security services are as a group there would be so much fear and loathing and gnashing of teeth that national security would indeed be at risk.

Don't be late for prayers.

Iraq conquered. Administration hawks push regime change in Iran and support direct military action there just in case the nuclear program at Natanz is not decomissioned. The force of this logic is staggering. Since Saudi Arabia rulers began their putsch six months ago of the most militant mullahs, just under 2000 of the 80,000 religious leaders have been fired. Officially they've been sent for "reeducation". This is the opening salvo in an as yet undeclared civil war in the kingdom. And should any in the ruling faction favor accommodation with the mullahs, the bellicose approach to Iran by the coalition will so inflame the militant mullahs that there will be no accommodation possible in Saudi Arabia. The more beligerent the coalition towards Iran the more impetus for an otherwise divided and/or uncommitted Saudi ruling class to exterminate militant Islam in their own backyard. It's a survival thing. Priceless.

The Treasury Department (news - web sites) had warned it needed the extension by next week "to preserve the confidence in the U.S. government and to prevent uncertainty that would adversely affect our economic recovery." The current $6.4 trillion limit was breached earlier this year, and Treasury paid its bills by shifting money from government retirement and other funds, maneuvers it said it could not make again. Ken Lay call your office

May 12, Bad Hair Day for House of Saud:

Zealot bombers killed 30+ souls at 3 kaffir housing compounds in Riyadh. The good news is that apparently more Saudi shadid died than American kaffirs. Will the princes send 25k to the families of the shadid as they do to the martyrs' families in Palestine? Nah. It's tough to make the case that the martyrs weren't fighting Zionist crusaders, so expect the checques to go out from the disloyal opposition.

So now it gets interesting...until recently according to the princes there weren't any militant zealots in the Kingdom. Only rival alcohol traders. Then all of a sudden, a week before the simulcast bombings there's a published alert to the populace by the police for 19 zealots which was immediately countered by fatwas from 3 mullahs opposing the princes that said explicitly that these 19 were to be sheltered. Expect the 19 to find lots of support on the ground. This all is an unpardonable affront to the princes.

Good. Now they'll have to take out the backers of the shadid. The dudes who should know better but are obsessed by the lure of real virgins left behind by the martyrs. These folks lurk in the security services, business elites, and radical mosques. The outcome of the pogrom to ensue is far from knowable. But count on it, lots of bad guys on both sides will be dead soon.

It's a perpetual motion machine now.

This calls for a drink.

Saddam Hussein's future is not bright. Assuming he's still with us he's now as dangerous as a wounded bear. All those microbes encased in tupperware avaliable for the asking to worthy holy warriors. And with this act come to peace with his maker and rival Sallauddin. Atone for a secular life and become an arab saint while offing the enemy by the tens of millions. A cancer on humanity, unleashing his malignancies in a cascade of violent insanity. That Iraq may soon become another proving ground for assymetry like Chechnya appears to be the least of our worries. What about the stuff that was in the mobile lab the coalition found recently? Whither to?

Makes you wonder.