Hard Logic, Difficult Choices

For those of you who are just starting to read this blog, I would ask that you read my Apostasy post before reading this one. Seems that Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the bombing in Tel Aviv. The Hamas led government of the PLA has deemed this bombing as a legitimate act of resistance.
So let me start connecting the dots here for those of you who are a little skiddish:
1. The people of Palestine democratically elected a national government.
2. That government is comprised of a terrorist organization (Hamas) that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
3. Hamas has judged an act of terrorism to be a legitimate act of hostility.
4. A legitimate act of hostility implies government consent and support.
5. A legitimate act of hostility with government consent and support is an act of war.
6. Hamas, and the Palestinian people by their vote, have committed an act of war (not terrorism) against Israel.
Now this opens up some really interesting possibilities for the Israelis. All government officials are now belligerents. A state of war can now exist instead of some quasi counter-insurgency. The real question is directed towards the US. Do we continue to sit on the fence of the clash of civilizations? I say we pick a side and see it through to the bitter end. Israel represents the western promise of the Middle East. Palestine and Iran represent the Arab pathos that will use every opportunity to destroy the west. We must use every scrap of logic left to us to counter the threat from the east. They can westernize or isolate themselves from the rest of the world. They must not be allowed to make their claim for our destruction credible. The clash is coming. We can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is bringing moderation, or we can face it head on. They are willing to die for their way of life. We are willing to die for ours. But are we willing to kill in such quantities to defeat them?

Laffer Curve

I'm a big fan of National Review and the online website. If any of you get the chance to go there and look around, you can see why I like it. They speak my language. Anyway, there was an article in the magazine a few issues back that had the Laffer Curve. The gist of it is that as the tax rate is lowered in proportion to the amount of income of the individual taxpayer and business then the total amount of tax revenues increases. Taxing a man at a lesser percentage makes him more productive, and increases the total amount of money he contributes. That baffles liberals (and I mean the tax and spend kind, not "the government can have my money when they pry it out of my cold dead hands" types) and is a great issue for Republicans.
Notice that I said Republicans there and not conservatives. One of the principles of conservatism is limited government. More money in the coffers of the legislature does not limit government. President Reagan was a believer in the Curve and used it as a basis for his revival of the economy. The only thing is, President Reagan actually cut the growth of the federal government.
My recommendation would be to set the tax rate at the optimal angle on the curve. That would put the lowest tax rate in relation to the amount of money being collected. Next would be setting out the federal budget and then cutting it by ten percent. We don't need to slash too much the first year, just enough to make the Democrats howl. Then we would promise that it is just a one time thing and that it is not a sign of a slippery slope of cutting entitlement spending (wink). Now take the tax revenues and subtract the cost of the yearly budget. Less the 10% and the additional income from the Laffer Curve, then we would have a surplus. That surplus would then be used to pay down the national debt. Normal people have to live within their means and pay the bills, Congress should be held to the same standard.