President-elect Barack Obama has signaled that he will pursue a far more ambitious plan of spending and tax cuts than anything he outlined on the campaign trail — a plan "big enough to deal with the huge problem we face,” a top adviser said Sunday — setting the tone for a recovery effort that could absorb and define much of his term.

A member of the Obama economic advisory team, William M. Daley, acknowledged that because of the gravity of the situation, Mr. Obama was leaning toward letting a Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire on schedule in 2011 rather than repealing it sooner.

Rutgers, the biggest and most important public university in New Jersey, has spent millions of dollars furthering its ambition to become a major football power that might otherwise have been devoted to academics. It has done so during a period of rising tuition and budgetary cutbacks in academic departments...

During his two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has often cited Abraham Lincoln. Well, it turns out Obama could be taking over the presidency at something more closely resembling (though still far short of) a Lincolnian moment than one would have expected. And it was Lincoln who wrote, in his second annual message to Congress, in December 1862: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

Given that, one has to welcome the expected appointment to senior positions in the Obama administration of economists like Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Jason Furman, Peter Orszag, and Goolsbee himself. They’re sober and competent people who know we face a real crisis — and who, importantly, may be more willing than many of their colleagues to adjust their thinking early and often.

Indeed, one hopes they’re not too invested in the findings of the economics profession of which they’re such distinguished products — because one suspects many of the conventional answers of that profession aren’t much applicable to the current situation. After all, wasn’t it excessive confidence in complex economic models and sophisticated financial instruments on the part of people well educated in modern economics that helped get us into the current mess?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's team has told the Federal Election Commission that she continued her campaign even after endorsing Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama on June 7, a claim that lets her transfer millions of dollars from her presidential bid to her Senate campaign.

The former first lady made the $6.4 million transfer from her White House campaign, which remains more than $7 million in debt, to Friends of Hillary on Aug. 28. That date would fall outside the legal deadline for making such a move if her campaign were to have ended June 7.

Perhaps the most brilliant thing about Barack Obama's successful campaign was its vagueness. In offering himself as the all-purpose Change We Can Believe In, Obama gave believers a blank slate and a tacit license to project upon him their deepest longings.  ...  Details, however, were not the Obama campaign's strongest selling point. Rather, Obama succeeded by capitalizing on the kind of boundless Hope that prompted a Florida woman, Peggy Joseph, to her memorable declaration after a late-October campaign rally: "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car; I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."

Such irrational expectations are inevitably followed by disillusionment. No prediction of what the next four years might bring is safer than this: The yawning gap between Hope and reality will produce a bumper crop of ex-Democrats.

Overall, Americans fail the test, which featured questions on U.S. history and economics written at a high school level, with many of the questions taken from a Department of Education test designed for 12th graders. The average score was 49%, and people from all walks of life -- rich, poor, conservative, liberal, religious, secular, etc. -- earned similarly terrible scores.

Specifically, only 27% of citizens know that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids establishing an official religion for the United States. Barely half of Americans know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress and not the president. Fewer than half can name all three branches of the government.

When I was a high school junior, my U.S. history teacher tried to trap me on that last one. First he asked if anyone could name the Three Stooges. I shot back with Larry, Moe, and Curly. He then challenged me to name the three branches of government, expecting to show that I was better versed in dumb TV than in important matters.

This year's study allows a comparison between college graduates and those without higher education, and the results are ugly: college grads earned a failing grade only 13 percentage points higher than those with only high school diplomas. ...

Most damning of all, perhaps, is that self-identified elected officials score lower on average than the general public.

Let us say (a) freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.  ...

"Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved." -- Ahmadinejad 2005

THE Iraq War is over.

Flames still burst from various sources and wild cards remain, such as the potential that Muqtada al-Sadr might stomp his feet and encourage his diminished militias to attack us. Yet support for Sadr among Shia is hardly monolithic. In fact, many Shia view him as a simpleton whose influence derives strictly from respect for his father. Others cite the threat from Iran, but the Iranian participation in the fighting here remains overstated.

Nobody knows what the future will bring, but the civil war has completely ended.  ...

Last week, I shed my helmet and body armor and walked in south Baghdad as evening fell. The US soldiers who took me along were from the battle-hardened 10th Mountain Division; about half the platoon were combat veterans from Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Though most were in their 20s, they seemed like older men. None had even fired a weapon during this entire tour, which so far has lasted more than eight months, in what previously was one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq.

Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

Here’s my thought on his team. Summers, Geithner, and Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what’s especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been McCain’s Treasury man).

About a year and half ago economist Don Luskin sent me a long article about taxes by Christine and her husband David Romer, who were writing for the National Bureau of Economic Research. From the introduction: “The resulting estimates indicate that tax increases are highly contractionary. . . . The large effect stems in considerable part form a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment.”

Later in the article, the Romers write: “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”

That’s what makes the Romer appointment so interesting. In fact, there is no question that Obama’s economic team is right of center. All three are market-oriented. They’re also pro-free-trade. Hopefully Summers and Geithner maintain the Robert Rubin King Dollar policy of the Clinton years. And if Ms. Romer can stop tax hikes, that will help the greenback even more.  ...

Economist Paul Hoffmeister has it right: We need to invigorate incentives to produce and invest. Let me take it even further. We need to revive the dormant animal spirits, which have been beaten down by a brutal bear market in stocks, the ongoing housing slump, and all the myriad blockages to credit availability. A bunch of new spending won’t do the trick. Lower tax rates will.

Government policy must make it clear that new successes will be handsomely rewarded. This will be Obama’s greatest challenge. While he may not raise taxes in 2009 — a good thing — he hasn’t yet come up with a new bolt of electricity that will hardwire the serious risk-taking that lies at the heart of free-market capitalism. Right now, the missing electric bolt is lower tax rates and greater rewards for new risk investment by investors, successful earners, and business.

On the plus side, however, Mr. Obama talks optimistically. That’s good. He says he’s hopeful about our future. And he says he is confident that American spirits will be resilient in this difficult time. That’s Reagansesque, Kennedyesque, and FDResque. But while FDR’s big-spending and regulating prevented economic recovery, Kennedy and Reagan opted for across-the-board supply-side tax-rate reductions to get America moving again. 

Which wine to buy is a question with important ecological consequences. You could always buy locally — all 50 states produce wine. But since most people seem to choose between California and France, the Post supplies a convenient map showing the boundary across the country — the “wine line” — where importing a bottle west from Bordeaux is carbon-equal to shipping east from Napa. Of course if you are a real eco-criminal you’ll drink Australian, in which case try the aptly named Turkey Flat 2007 Rosé Barossa Valley, or for something inexpensive and fun, the Paringa 2004 Sparkling Shiraz.

So now that I’m out of jail and back on the streets, what do I find? Not Hope. Not Change. I find the Clinton Restoration. What am I, Dave van Winkle?

Eric “Marc Rich Pardon” Holder as AG? Robert Rubin’s boy, Tim Geithner, at Treasury? Rahm “Entourage” Emanuel as chief of staff? Bill Richardson at Commerce? And, worst of all, Herself as secretary of State? The Rodham we fought so hard to beat? The imperiled heroine of Rush’s Operation Chaos? The woman whose pantsuits give the phrase “Foggy Bottom” a whole new meaning? Groundhog Day was less predictable than American politics these days.

I’m beginning to understand why our side is so afraid of a certain smokin’ hot (in a kind of Peckinpah, Killer Elite kind of way, not that I personally find her attractive) governor of Alaska. I mean, we’ve barely begun the beatification process on Barry and here we are, looking over our shoulder nervously at this Tina Fey doppelgänger and desperately trying to figure out what you clowns see in her. That’s why we’re sending in our MSNBC clones like Shuster and Alex Witt (former lead singer of the girl group, “Mrs. Robinson”) to destroy her before she can gain any more traction with “real Americans.” The last thing we need is the Moose Huntress, eyeing Barry for the next four years like he was a Thanksgiving turkey ripe for stuffing.

Because this one thing we know: We won this time by pulling the wool over the collected electorate of Pennsylvania (ridiculously easy), Ohio (somewhat harder), Virginia (harder still, but luckily the federal government suburbs now outweigh the Old Dominion) and Florida (proven stupid since 2000). We won this time by running against yet another tongue-tied “war hero” from a war nobody can remember, a Stockholm-Syndrome candidate who just wanted to be loved, even if he didn’t get elected. Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain — don’t you guys have anybody who can think on his feet?

Well, yeah, you do . . . except that he’s a she. Cool, unflappable, and the only thing that stood between Hussein Jr., and a 48-state landslide. The fact that we’re still obsessing about her ought to tell you something: Sarah Palin scares the bejesus out of us. Thank Gaia we have plenty of time to carve her up.

Because after four years of Sidwell Friends, Greg Craig, Sally Quinn, Hill ‘n’ Bill, and a poetaster in the White House whose only apparent passion is for cigarettes and hoops, the country may figure out it’s been had, that the only change it got was the color of the chief executive’s skin, but otherwise it’s the same old racket with the same old players. Hey — let’s all party like it’s September 10!

One often hears it said that one should ignore criticism. I do not agree that it is always wise to ignore criticism of oneself and one’s endeavors, even when the criticism is ill-natured, exhibitionistic, and predictable. For even when that is the character of the criticism, there is sometimes something to be learned from it not only about oneself and one’s critics, but about the world we live in.

William F. Buckley Jr., Aug. 1, 1956, National Review

LONDON (AP) - Britain is considering a ban on "happy hour" discounts at bars and restaurants to curb drinking, a spokesman said Saturday, as health advocates warned that a rise in liver-related deaths among young people may signal a future epidemic.
Health officials will decide on whether to ban the happy hours - designated times for discount drinks - once an independent policy review is published in coming weeks, a health department spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

That Was Then, This is Now?   [Victor Davis Hanson]

Given the fact that by late 2000, it was pretty obvious that we were going into recession, that the current President had been impeached and was ostracized by the Gore campaign, that the sleaze was cascading (and would culminate in the pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists, and the fugitive Rich), that the recent attacks on our embassies and the USS Cole had revealed that the U.S. either could not or would not respond to radical Islamic terrorists, did anyone—the Boston Globe, a NY Times columnist?—suggest that Bill Clinton step aside in late November and let the new team take over to save the country another two months of the Clinton limbo?

PS: I doubt the Bush people will be taking keys off White House computer keyboards.

As progressives, we can view President-Elect Obama's emerging economic team in one of two ways. Either he has disappointed us by picking a group of Clinton retreads--the very people who brought us the deregulation that produced the financial collapse; the fiscal conservatives who in the 1990s put budget balance ahead of rebuilding public institutions. Or we can conclude that he has very shrewdly named a team of technically competent centrists so that he can govern as a progressive in pragmatist's clothing--as he moves the political center to the left.