Help Wanted

France is making an effort to boost its intelligence community to counter increasing threats at home and abroad. It was announced that, despite France's current economic challenges, the General Directorate for External Security would receive a 13 percent budget increase in order to improve its ability to detect and deter threats France faces at home and abroad.

At the top of the list the agency is planning to establish a new national intelligence academy. It is also planning to add 500 people to its payroll. Those positions would center around linguists, surveillance experts and crypto-mathematicians to counter the evolving and complex threats worldwide. Software experts, surveillance agents. and network engineers are a priority. Said one expert, "a major evolution is underway."

Lest anyone in France not trained in espionage or on the cutting edge of computer technology currently looking for work be discouraged, the agency is also hiring warehouse workers. A successful spy agency needs people to stock chairs and lamps as well as network engineers and exploding pens.

Why Waste Vice?

Texas is seeking to drive up lottery sales. Revenue is down. The state has come to rely on the lottery to help balance the budget. Not enough people in Texas are playing. Only one out of three people in Texas is playing the lottery. The state needs more people to play.

People in Texas, and elsewhere, are constantly encouraged to play the lottery. There are bill boards, print ads, and television commercials enticing people to play. We are asked to wonder if today might be our lucky day. Naturally, the only way to know whether it is your lucky day is to buy a lottery ticket and find out. The state doesn't care whether you can afford to play. The state doesn't care if you have better things to spend your money on. The state doesn't care if you have a gambling problem. The state just wants you to play. They also want you to lose.

The lottery is a swindle by any standard. The odds of winning a three number ticket are a thousand to one. The odds of winning the jack pot are higher than that of being being hit by lightning. Much higher. You might as well follow an armored car and hope some money falls out the back. The odds never improve no matter how many times you play. In the case of scratch offs, the game is fixed. The state knows how many tickets are printed, how many winning tickets there are, and how much will be won.

The state gambles too. It gambles that not too many winning tickets will be sold too quickly. Ideally, just enough winning tickets are sold for just enough in pay outs that people will be more encouraged to play rather than become discouraged. Lottery boards are constantly tinkering to find the ideal balance to generate maximum profits and ensure maximum enthusiasm. It is not uncommon for people to become more excited over the lottery after they have won something. Even if it took them $100 to find a $20 winning ticket, they are still delighted. With customers like that, how can you lose?

In Texas, gambling used to be considered a vice. It still is, unless the state is running the game. If the lottery is not able to bring in the revenue needed to run the state, there is always prostitution and drugs. People are going to visit prostitutes and use drugs anyway, why not make money off it? People are prone to vice. There is no reason not to take advantage of that. If that is an idea that bothers some people, the state could simply set aside some of the money it takes in by selling drugs to offer counseling and rehabilitation. Some of the money raised by prostitution could be set aside to fund shelters for abused women. That should make everybody happy, and the state richer. Why waste vice when you can make money off it instead?

The lottery is a swindle, but it is a state sponsored swindle. That is the difference. Texas needs people to gamble and it needs them to lose. Texas made $3.74 billion last year with the lottery. In 1995, more than 70 percent of Texans played the lottery. Less than half that many are playing today. Rather than being pleased that fewer Texans are wasting their money buying lottery tickets, the state is concerned.

Texas wants people to gamble. You thought Texas was a conservative state.

Good Timing

On Thursday, the House approved a controversial bill that would extend President Bush's tax cuts. The bill is now headed to President Obama's desk. It would be difficult for the timing to be any better. The bill extends the tax cuts for two years. That means the next debate over the cuts will be in 2012. 2012 is an election year. It is a big election year. Obama will be running for reelection in 2012. I have never been good at predicting the future but I will hazard a guess that taxes and the economy will still be issues of concern to voters in 2012. I will also guess that the prospect of ending or continuing Bush's tax cuts will be an issue as well. Short of a war or a catastrophe, the economy should be the major issue in 2012. If it improves significantly, President Obama will point that out every at every opportunity. If it does not improve, republicans will point that out at every opportunity.

If the economy is improving in 2012 many will credit the tax cuts. It will be said that lower taxes spurred the recovery and raising them will only harm it. If the economy is still foundering, it will be difficult to make an argument for letting the cuts expire. Whether or not the higher taxes that will result if the policy is allowed to expire will help or hinder the economy, they will not be popular: higher taxes never are. Election years are the years when politicians want most to be popular. The only circumstance under which letting the cuts expire will not cause a lot of controversy is if the economy is thriving. If the economy is thriving many would not complain, at least not complain loudly, if some taxes were raised. People could afford it. Not only that, people could afford principal and fairness as well. Election years are the best years to grant tax cuts. They are the worst years to raise taxes. 2012 is an election year.

Tax cuts and economic policy are complicated issues except at election time. At election time they are simple: do you want to pay higher taxes or not? Obama hailed the tax cuts. He pretty much had to.

Can We Rely on Voters?

Some legislators in Texas are growing leery of allowing voters the option of straight party voting on election ballots. They are considering a bill to ban it. "Straight ticket voting is detrimental to our system" asserted State Senator Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio. He and others feel it undermines democracy by making voters lazy. Wentworth wants to go so far to make straight ticket voting illegal. It is viewed as a "luxury" that is making voters complacent. That may be so but complacence is a prerogative that belongs to the voters.

American citizens have the right to vote. They are free to exercise that right in the manner they see fit. Voters do not have to be intelligent, coherent, or informed. They do not even have to be able to read. They just have to be registered. There was a time when voters were required to pass a literacy test. The assumption was that voters needed to be able to read if they were to be at all informed. They had to be informed if they were to be able to make an intelligent decision. That the rule was abused to keep segments of the population from voting changes nothing. The rule was sound in its merits. People no longer have to read to be informed. We have long had television and radio to serve that purpose. The Internet has become important but it still requires at least a modicum of literacy. For better or worse (more often worse), we also have interest groups to keep the public informed. Perhaps worst of all, people do not have to know the Constitution. They needn't even be familiar with it. There is no civics test. They do not need to know how the government works or what its responsibilities are. They do not need to know how many branches of government there are. They just need to know where the voting station is. All this makes them potential dupes and easy prey for political opportunists.

In a typical Texas election there are a great number of names on the ballot. Once one moves past the top of the ticket there is a plethora of choices for state representatives, judges, commissioners, constables, justices of the peace, and more. One has to be a political junkie to keep track of all the races and candidates. The easiest way to sort it out is through voting a straight ticket. If you are inclined to believe Republicans would do a better job managing state affairs you can pull the lever. If you believe the Democrats would be better, you can pull the other lever. That is why we have political parties in the first place. Political parties are ways to organize politics and make it coherent for voters. At least they used to be.

Straight ticket voting saves voters time and energy. They do not have to educate themselves on all the issues or candidates. They cannot educate themselves on all the issues and candidates. People have traditionally relied on parties to sort out issues for them. If Wentworth is uncomfortable with that he is in the wrong business. He hopes that by banning straight ticket voting he will be able to force voters to be more attentive. He wants to make them think in the voting booth. It is a commendable effort. But even if Wentworth succeeds he will have done nothing to make voters more educated or responsible. He will likely only irritate and confuse them.

There are very few, if any, voters in Texas that are informed on all the issues in the state, let alone candidates and policy positions. To force them into choosing candidates office by office will do nothing to preserve the integrity of the system. It will do nothing to make voters more informed or responsible. If anything, it will do little more than reduce the number of votes cast as voters begin to lose interest the further down the ballot they go. Some results at the bottom of the ballot would likely resemble football scores.

Wentworth does not trust the voters. He believes many are uninformed and therefore led astray by straight ticket voting. He may be right. Voters have jobs and families. They have bills to pay. They have lives to live. They do not have the luxury of analyzing policy, assessing candidates, and examining issues in every race. They rely on political parties to keep things sorted out. If the system is not working, it is not the fault of the public. They do not have, and they never will have, the time to examine politics issue by issue and office by office. The public relies on political parties to patch everything together. That is what parties are supposed to be for. A better way would be to strengthen parties at all levels, local to national. That would not make voters any more responsible either but it would help make the political system more coherent. But parties are increasingly under fire, both in Texas and across the nation. Some legislators in Texas think that a political free for all would benefit the state. I doubt that they have thought the issue through.

Eliminating straight ticket voting would not fix any of the short comings of popular elections in Texas. It would not make voters any more informed or responsible. It would just make elections more tumultuous and voting more random. It is difficult to see how Texas would be better off for that.

A Little Over the Top

On Wednesday, General Han Min-Koo, chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of staff called North Korea's recent shelling of Yeonpyeong Island an "intolerable act against humanity." Humanity suffered four casualties. Two marines and two civilians were killed.

In today's Dallas Morning News, columnist William Murchison cheered the state of Connecticut for imposing the death penalty on Steven Hays. Hays was convicted of beating Dr. William Petit with a baseball bat and raping and strangulating his wife to death. Afterward, Hays tied the Petit's two daughters to their beds and set the house on fire. The girls died. Their father escaped. Murchison described Hays' actions as an outrage against "every known moral premise."

The shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was not an intolerable act against humanity. It was an unprovoked attack that killed four people. Humanity was not shelled by the North Koreans. Yeonpyeong Island was. Hays did not violate every known moral premise. He raped and strangled a woman, beat her husband with a baseball bat, and burned her two daughters to death.

The resort to histrionics is unnecessary. North Korea's shelling was a blatant act of aggression. There is no need to exaggerate. It is clear enough that North Korea's actions were dastardly. There are words enough to describe the shelling without resorting to breathless condemnations. Similarly, it is clear enough that Hays' actions were an outrage. Despite the heinous crimes he was convicted of, the fact is Haynes did not violate every known moral premise. He violated two, maybe three if you count arson as a violation of a moral premise. He raped and he murdered: two of the most viscous crimes a person can commit. They are terrible enough. There is no need to exaggerate or pile adjectives and adverbs on top of them.

To leap to dramatic exaggerations is unnecessary, even deleterious. Adolf Hitler himself did not violate every known moral premise. He did not cheat on his mistress and he was loyal to his friends: as long as they remained his friends. He even had a dog. If we use up our gravest condemnations on family murders and the shelling of islands, we will have nothing left for real outrages. We will be left like teenagers and have to describe future crimes and outrages by putting "way" in front of our exclamations. If the shelling of an island that results in four deaths is an intolerable act against humanity, then genocide must be a way intolerable act against humanity. If the rape and murder of a woman and her two daughters is an outrageous violation of every known moral premise, what is left for monsters like Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy?

If our adjectives and adverbs are going to be worth anything in the future we need to try and conserve them. They are already worn thin. Murchison is an editorialist. He should leave embellishment to to others. Min-Koo is a general. He should know the difference between an unprovoked shelling and an intolerable crime against humanity. We need to save some words for later when we might truly need them.

Stepping Towards Paradise.

While attention may be focused on federal spending, tension on the Korean peninsula, and the Middle East, the government is still at work on other fronts. On Thursday the House took action on the pressing problem of volume in television commercials. A bill was proposed that, among other things, would restrict the volume of television commercials. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. was motivated by her own family's "earsplitting" experiences that, according her, nearly "blew them out of the house." Another bill headed to the president's desk is meant to address the crisis of childhood obesity by giving the government control over what sorts of food may be sold in schools. There is enough government that little in the nation is neglected.

It may be argued that television broadcast volume is a legitimate federal concern. Part of the FCC's job is to tend to the television. Part of Congress' job is to tend to the FCC. Despite Eshoo's hyperbole, television volume should not be on the FCC's list. If it must be on the FCC's list, it should be at the bottom. Commercial volume is annoying. It is not a threat to the health, sensibilities, or morals of the American public. It is a nuisance that already has a solution: the volume control. No doubt that is why Eshoo felt compelled to try and elevate the problem through exaggeration. Few would be motivated to support government relief from annoying volume. But "earsplitting" volume that nearly blows one out the door is another matter. Surely something ought to be done about that.

Childhood obesity on the other hand is more than a nuisance. It is a large and growing problem in the country. The House evidently agreed with Michelle Obama and others that our children are being overwhelmed by fatty foods. Candy and snack food makers have moved to fill the slot in our public school system once occupied by drug dealers. Like the furtive drug dealers of old, snack food machines, hamburgers, and pizza are luring our children into a downward spiral of deprivation and misery. If action is not taken now, millions of children will suffer the taunts of others and the miserable fate allotted to the overweight.

The epidemic of obesity plaguing the nation is not due to the food that is sold or provided to Americans, it is about the food purchased and consumed by Americans. People eat hamburgers and pizza because they like to eat hamburgers and pizza, not because people sell them hamburgers and pizza. You can put all the fruit and vegetables you like in front of people but if people don't want to eat it, they won't. Since most Americans like hamburgers, pizza, and candy they would bristle at attempts to prevent them from eating them. A more subtle approach is required. That is why the advocates of leanness are seeking to maneuver America into health by making it more difficult to eat poorly. If children have nothing but healthy food to eat, they will have to eat healthy food. In time, they will learn to enjoy it. If children eat healthy food, they will grow up to be healthy and thin. If they are trained properly, they will remain healthy and thin. That is the theory any way.

Over the years, the public has increasingly looked to the federal government to do for them what they ought to be doing themselves. Parents are the ones who should be making sure their children eat right and exercise, not the government. People should turn down the volume on their TV if it is too loud, not the government. The more government does for people, the less people have to do for themselves. If we can get the government to turn down the volume and keep our kids from eating candy and drinking soda pop at school we will have taken another step towards paradise.

I am surprised that it hasn't occurred to the government that if they turn down the volume for the public the obesity problem in the U.S. might get worse. People won't have to get off the couch if they can't find the remote. On the other hand, if the volume is lowered, people might be reluctant to get up and visit the refrigerator lest they miss the commercials. I suppose it is a toss up.

A Commendable Start

It is anticipated that when the White House deficit commission unveils it proposals today there will be a lot of upset people across the nation. Along with proposals to raise taxes, many programs and services that Americans find useful and have come to rely upon are facing cuts or elimination. One such program is the mortgage interest deduction popular among home owners. It is argued that the mortgage interest deduction costs the federal government $100 billion in lost tax revenue every year. Kay Weeks, president of the MetroTex Association of Realtors in Dallas, TX predicted that the public will be angry. She argued that the millions of upset voters who shook up Congress in the recent elections will be even more upset. I suspect she is correct. People who voted out congressmen because they felt the government was too big and spending too much money surely did not do so to end up paying more in taxes. Less government is one thing. Paying more for less government is quite another.

In a bold move, the commission is hoping that if the proposals hurt everybody, they will be more easily accepted. It is proposed that the social security retirement age be raised to 67. Cost of living increases will be lessened. Tax credits for mortgage interest would be reduced. If adopted, the proposals would be felt. Some of the proposals would hit people twice. Raising gasoline taxes as proposed will be felt at the pump. It will also be felt at the grocery store and the shopping mall where businesses will pass along increased shipping costs due to higher fuel taxes to consumers.

Eliminating tax breaks is certainly warranted in many cases, but it should not be construed as cutting spending. It is increasing revenue. Not collecting something is different from giving something away. Tax breaks do not give anyone anything they did not already have. It is arrogance of the highest order for the government to assert that by not taking something it is in fact giving something away. It carries the implication that what we have is not really ours and if the government decides it wants it or needs it, it can take it. In a sense, by letting you keep what is yours, the government is just being magnanimous.

The billions the government anticipates it will gain by adjusting the tax code are billions that will not be in the hands of consumers or businesses. That is bad news for the economy. Unless it is stuffed in a mattress or buried in the back yard, money in the hands of consumers is a good thing. Whether it is spent, saved, or invested, the economy benefits. If they spend it, the economy grows. Customarily, when money changes hands, profit is made. If people do not spend it they will save or invest it. If they save it, banks have more money to lend. By lending money banks not only make money, they make it possible for others to earn money by making it available to people who need it to purchase things. If they invest it the economy will gain by allowing businesses to expand and modernize, resulting in new opportunities and a growing economy, assuming it is not stolen by avaricious executives and corrupt financiers.

Raising business taxes is always problematic. Business is often seen as distinct from the rest of society. But it isn't. It is an integral part of it. Without business there would be no economy. If it weren't for capitalism, the economy would still be in the middle ages. One assails business at their own peril. Moreover, higher business taxes are typically passed along to consumers. Where the burdens of higher taxes cannot be passed along they have to be compensated for. Sometimes this is done by laying off workers. Sometimes it is done by raising prices or reducing quality. Some businesses go so far as to relocate overseas.

The real drawback of lower taxes from the government's point of view is that it has less money to spend. It matters little to the government how much money individuals or businesses have other than what it represents as tax revenue. The government's real concern is how much money it has, not the tax payer. Low taxes are a boon to citizens but they are a hindrance to government.

The government needs to take a long hard look at spending. They need to reduce it. The Fiscal Commission has made a commendable effort to do so. Programs and services are going to have to be cut. People are going to be upset. Some are going to be hurt. But is arrogant to describe tightening the tax code as curtailing gifts as some are doing. Taking less is not giving. Paying taxes is a transaction. The public provides money to the government. In return, the government provides services to the people. It is likely in the near future the public will be paying more and getting less. Weeks is correct. The public will be angry. Anyone would be.

The issue at hand is not about government. Some of what the government does is necessary. Some of what the government does is beneficial. Some of what the government does is wasteful. Some of what the government does is harmful. That is what is going to have to be sorted out. If that can be done, the task of identifying where cuts should be made will be easier. It will still be painful but the country will be stronger for it. Neither is the issue simply about taxes. Taxes have to be collected if the government is to operate. The government has to operate if we are to have a civilized society. At the bottom, the issue is about what we want and expect from government and what we are willing to pay for it.

We cannot expect the government to do what we want it to do at the price we have so far been willing to pay. If the U.S. is able to right itself the effort will have been in vain if the American public does not reconsider what it expects from government. If it is unable or unwilling to do so, at the first glimpse of black ink the frenzy will resume.

Patriots?

Yesterday President Obama called civil service workers patriots and asked them to take to take a two year pay freeze. Pay raises have become taken for granted by public employees. For the first time in modern history, they are being asked to forgo one. They are angry. They believe that is no way to treat patriots. That may be so but they are not really patriots. Obama was flattering them. They are employees.

Soldiers may be patriots. On occasion, politicians might be patriots. Civilians may be patriotic. Police and firemen are courageous. Pulling children out of a burning building is heroic, but it is not patriotic. We rely on firemen and medics to rescue us. We rely on policemen to protect us. We trust that heroism will be there when we need it. We certainly do not rely on their patriotism. I would rather have a heroic fire department than a patriotic one. I am sure most Americans would. Soldiers may be patriots but are not necessarily so. Volunteering to enlist is not the bar for patriotism. Sacrificing to serve one's country is a patriotic thing. Enlisting to acquire job skills or get money for college is not.

People who go to work at government offices are not patriots. They certainly are not heroic. Most are complacent bureaucrats safely ensconced in recession proof jobs with benefits envied by most of the workforce. If they are unhappy and feel they are being mistreated they can quit. I'll wager they won't. They will only redouble their effort to get what they feel is due to them.

Government workers do not work for themselves. They work for us. If we cannot afford them their annual pay raises then they should not get them. The U.S. is going broke. Costs have to be cut. The tax payers should not have to bear the burden alone. When it comes to cutting costs, the government cannot exclude itself. Government workers forgoing pay raises is no more unjust than autoworkers doing so. Saying we cannot afford to provide their automatic pay raises is not unpatriotic. Far from it.

In a capitalist country, no one can or should take their job for granted. No one should be entitled to automatic pay raises regardless of performance. Besides, if government workers received their raises on the basis of performance, many would not have received a raise in years. If their jobs were tied to performance, many would be lucky to have jobs.

Going to to work is not patriotic. Neither is doing your job. It is a responsibility. Government workers, like most other workers, agree to take their job with the understanding that they will be paid a certain amount for doing a specific task. For the most part, they are not highly trained professionals. They are clerks and bureaucrats, not patriots. If the government cannot afford to give them their automatic pay raises for just showing up to work and doing their job, they should not get them. They are free to find employment elsewhere if the job becomes unbearable. My bet is they won't. Even without an automatic pay raise, they would be hard pressed to find a job where as little was demanded of them for the pay and benefits they receive. They know it. Besides, nothing was said about the next automatic pay raise. It would not be at all surprising if the next raise they get compensates them for the one they are being asked to forgo. If their union is worth its dues, the next raise will be. That is why they might grumble and threaten, but they will not quit. They might decide to do their job with less alacrity and enthusiasm, but who would know?

True patriots go beyond what is expected of them. They risk life and property for love of their country, not for money. Just as a young man who enlists in the military simply to gain money for college, learn a skill, or just get away from home is not a patriot, a person who shows up for work in the Department of Agriculture for no other reason than that is their job is not a patriot.

From what I read and hear, I think most people don't know what a patriot is. It has become little more than a term of respect. If bureaucrats want to be patriots and have the respect of the nation, they will have to earn it. Good luck. If bureaucrats are patriots, what are we to call those who do more than put in forty hours a week in an air conditioned office for a paycheck?

We are on the verge of losing a good and a noble concept. If all patriotism required was displaying a flag, going to work, and publicly avowing your love for the nation and its troops, it would be a cheap thing indeed. A true patriot risks life and property for his country. The government is going broke. Being asked to forgo an automatic pay raise does not seem like much to ask of a patriot, especially when one considers how such an action would be a benefit to the nation.

People should take the time to look up "patriot" in the dictionary. Then they should look up "employee".

Don't Buy Me Donuts

There is unease brewing across the nation at the earmark ban adopted by Republicans in Congress. Apart from the Democrats who have yet to embrace it, many local governments and private groups are uneasy. They have come to rely upon earmarks to get things done. So have people. Projects across the nation are in jeopardy. Ship channels need to be dredged, commuter lines need to be expanded, libraries need to be built. Because state and local governments have been eviscerated by Washington, those governments have become dependent on federal funds. Suddenly, those funds have been identified as "pork" spending. In Dallas, for example, the Trinity River Project to expand light rail in the city is in trouble. It should be. It would take casuistry of the highest order to make the case that improved public transportation in Dallas in any way benefits taxpayers of the nation. Nevertheless, Dallas wants the Trinity River Project and they need the federal government to help pay for it.

One would be hard pressed to find people concerned about light rail in Dallas outside the city. (Texas being Texas, it would not be much easier to find people in Dallas concerned about light rail.) But that really doesn't matter. Virtually every district has a project in jeopardy. Because of that, every district has something in common. They all want federal funds. That is the appeal of earmarks. The costs are borne by the nation but the benefits are reaped by individual politicians. The costs are abstract. The benefits are concrete. The debate over earmarks may be one of principal but the community center built by earmarks can be pointed to and touched.

Most Americans have come to the conclusion that there is a spending problem in Washington. Earmarks have become a symbol of that problem, nothing more. Earmarks are not bankrupting the country. Entitlements, bail outs, and the ambitions of Washington are. If every earmark was scrubbed from the federal budget, the deficit would be only scratched, no more.

Even if a a district was able to muster the integrity to elect a congressman who not only would promise to oppose earmarks, but refuse them, the primary result of that action would be to put that district at a disadvantage. The taxpayers of that district would still be paying for earmarks, they just wouldn't be getting any return on their money.

The problem with earmarks, and government spending in general, is not one of laws or institutions. It is one of politics. And political problems can be laid on the lap of voters. Voters expect their representatives to deliver, not just votes on issues important to them, but money as well. If their representative cannot deliver the goods, they will find one who can. I cannot think of a single instance where a politician was chastised by his constituents for bringing too much money home to his district.

The public is the one with the spending problem, not the government. Congressmen wouldn't scramble to bring home money if they didn't benefit from it at the polls. The public has become like the overweight husband who asks his wife not to buy donuts because if she buys them he will eat them. But, if she doesn't buy donuts, her husband is miserable and takes it out on her. What is a poor woman to do? If she has to choose between a fat but happy husband and an angry, thin one, more often than not she will choose a fat and happy one, even if she has to borrow money to keep him fat and happy.

The public wants to blame politicians for the massive spending taking place in Washington. They need to blame Washington because they refuse to accept that they are the ones responsible. No one in Washington is forcing money on the public. Quite the opposite. The public clamors for it. At the bottom, if the public wants a smaller, cheaper government they will have to reduce their demands upon it and learn to do some things without it.

So long as the public loves donuts, it will elect people who will get them donuts. Free donuts are the best donuts of all. And if it means a politician must provide the public with donuts to keep his job, he can be counted on to do so.

There are 435 congressional districts in the U.S. that need to be kept happy. Each representative is only concerned with one. The other 434 are not his responsibility. Until a politician actually loses an election for bringing money home to his district, ending earmarks will remain a dream.

It will be interesting to see how many of those in Washington who favor ending earmarks will run for reelection on what they did not bring home.

The Right Decision

President Obama is to be commended for holding his ground regarding the civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani. Ghailani was acquitted Wednesday of all but one of the 280 charges he faced surrounding the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 Americans. The decision has angered those who opposed a civilian trial for Ghailani. Obama resisted attempts to move Ghialani's trial to a military court. Ghailani did not go free. He still faces 20 years to life for his conviction on the count of conspiracy. I will wager he gets the maximum sentence allowed.

Innocent until proven guilty is not a slogan. It is a principal. Guilty people are not put on trial. Accused people are. The government cannot simply claim a person is guilty. They have to prove it in court. The rights of the accused in a civilian trial are weighted to balance the power of the state and protect his rights. A person confronted by the power and resources of the state, or in this case, the federal government, is at a distinct disadvantage. This is even more so when the public has been convinced of his guilt. Rights are instrumental to justice, they are not obstacles. Without rights, individuals can be crushed by the state.

Civilian trials of accused terrorists are not threats to national security. If the issue of sensitive information arises, the proceedings can be closed. Yet even if proceedings are closed, the accused's rights are retained. Chief among the procedural disadvantages Ghailani would have faced in a military court is that there would have been limited public scrutiny to ensure he was not placed in even greater jeopardy or legally mistreated. The only defender the accused has is usually himself a member of the military. There is no jury in a military trial. The court decides innocence or guilt. There is always the threat of a conflict of interest. In a trial such as Ghailani's where the stakes are high and the world is watching, the government should ensure that proceedings are above board. The best way to do that is to conduct them in open court for everyone, even our enemies, to see.

The advantages of a civilian trial gained by Ghailani will disappear if future proceedings are closed. In that case, we will hear of the progress of the trials and be made aware of at least some of the evidence. We will also hear of their defense. But we will only know what is released by the court. We will not know, and may never know, what the court has chosen to retain. The public will be told of the verdict and the sentence pronounced. The public might be satisfied. It should not be.

There was no need for a military trial for Ghailani. A lengthy, public trial was to the government's advantage. It gave them the opportunity to display the crimes Ghailani was accused of one by one for all the world to see. It was also an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate its commitment to justice and the rule of law, in other words, why we are the good guys. The decision to hold a civilian trial for Ghailani was about more than Ghailani. The system, despite the 279 findings of not guilty, worked. He will be going to jail for a very long time. It is about the people down the line. Those in custody may be guilty. They may not be. If secrecy and exclusion become standard practice, we will never know for sure. It is customary to believe a person is guilty when the state tells us they are. The state is not always right. Time and again it has been shown that the state makes mistakes. Not everyone accused of a crime is guilty. Some are innocent. That is what trials are for, to separate the guilty from the innocent. More precisely, that is what juries are for.

A public trial was good enough for Timothy McVeigh. It is good enough for Ghailani and others like him. As terrible as the crimes terrorists are accused of, this is not Nuremberg. If the government is afraid accused terrorists might be acquitted in civilian court, it should reassess its evidence. If particular evidence is sensitive, close the proceedings when the situation demands. Just give them a public trial. The people deserve one as much as accused terrorists do.

As unlikely as it is, Ghailani might just have been not guilty of 279 of the things that the government accused him of. The jury felt so and they were there. The government makes mistakes. It always has and it always will. Despite what the public may be led to believe, people are not guilty until a jury or court says they are. As it stands, Ghailani is not guilty of all but one of the things the government accused him of.

Some argue that a military court would have found Ghailani guilty on all of the counts brought against him. That might be true. But Ghailani is not a soldier. He is not in an army. He did not violate the Geneva Conventions. He is a member of a criminal organization who was complicit in blowing up an embasy and killing Americans. He has no business in a military court. To call what he did a war crime would stretch the definition of war crimes to include virtually any politically motivated attack on life and property.

Justice demands that the guilty be punished. It also demands the innocent go free. The purpose of a trial is to determine between the one or the other. That is why trials are so important. That is why they should be denied in only the gravest of circumstances. Legal rights are rarely appreciated until they are needed. If they are not protected, they might not be there when you need them.

Holdig public trials for accused terrorists is not a mistake. If nothing else, it gives the United States the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to civil rights and the rule of law. Short cuts and legal maneuvering to achieve our ends will tarnish our principals and send the wrong message to the world and our enemies. It is when those principals are inconvenient that our commitment to them is most important. If we are to hold our principals out as an example for others, it is best we follow them. A military trial would have sent a message of U.S. resolve. A civilian trial sends a message of U.S. commitment to justice and civil rights.

Many are irate at the the jury's decision. Some have gone so far as to condemn it as jury nullification. They point to the "hard evidence' brought against Ghailani. They claim the jury system not just failed, it failed utterly. They are incredulous that in the face of "irrefutable" evidence, a jury would "defy logic" and find Ghailani not guilty. As unlikely as it might seem to some, Ghailani might not have been guilty of 279 of the things the government accused him of. That was the conclusion the jury reached after hearing the evidence. Despite what the public might be led to believe, no one charged with a crime is guilty. They are not guilty until a jury finds them so. That is what trials are for.

The court did not fail. It worked just as it should. President Obama did not fail either. He did just as he should. He upheld the Constitution. Many wanted Ghailani dead. They were hoping the government would kill him. They were convinced of his guilt before he even entered the court room. They are the ones most disappointed by the decision. In lieu of his execution, they will have to be satisfied with him merely spending the rest of his life in prison.

Not a Bad Deal

It was reported Sunday that the U.S. was able to secure from Israel a 90 day freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. The freeze does not include construction in East Jerusalem. Construction in East Jerusalem is a major point of contention. Israeli construction there and elsewhere had brought peace talks to the brink of collapse when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas threatened to withdraw from the talks unless settlement construction stopped. Israel declared the freeze was a "one time only" deal.

In return for acceding to the U.S. request for a temporary halt in construction, the U.S. agreed to provide Israel 20 advanced fighter jets and other unspecified aid. The U.S. will also continue to oppose Palestinian statehood. When you consider that in 90 days when the freeze ends Israel is free to resume construction, it is not a bad deal. They have committed to nothing.

There is the possibility that an agreement can be arrived at between Israel and the Palestinians in 90 days. Given Netanyahu's resolve to build in the West Bank and Palestinian determination to keep that from happening, the chances of a deal being reached are remote. Years of negotiating have not resolved the issue. 90 days will not help much. The best that can be reasonably expected is the exchange of a few scraps of land, an agreement to keep negotiating, and perhaps a slightly less ambitious Israeli development plan for the near future.

If Israel resumes construction in the West Bank when the freeze ends, and it will, they will still get the aide, the fighter jets, and continued U.S. support in the U.N. They would have gotten them anyway. Israel could march the Palestinians into the sea and still rely on the U.S. for support and they know it.

At least Israel is willing to talk. They don't have to.

Pork or Bacon?

Republicans in Congress are at odds over ear marks. Established Republicans, other than for an occasional gesture or grumble, are comfortable with earmarks. It is how Congress gets things done. Legislators energized and indebted to Tea Party supporters however are causing friction with their vow to curtail the long tradition of earmarking. Curbing or halting earmarks was a central position among many of those who ran for Congress by running against Congress. Republican South Carolina Senator Jim Demint asserted that "Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory." When asked their opinion on earmarks in principal, voters have repeatedly expressed their disapproval. So have their representatives. Therein lies the problem. Pork spending is not a principal. It is a political way of life.

There is indeed something unsavory about representatives pilfering the treasury in order to purchase the support of their constituents. But when it is their representative or senator bringing money back home, many people take a very different view. $50 million for a new highway or bridge may be a source of irritation when read about in the newspaper. People may mutter or complain about government pork if that money is being spent elsewhere. However, if that money is to be spent in their district, principal often yields to opportunity. They will be the ones that benefit from the new highway or bridge, not others. Not only will they get a new highway or bridge, they will get the economic benefit of that $50 million being spent in their communities. Government pork is usually a matter of perspective. One man's pork is another man's bacon. While pork has long been a source of disgruntlement among the electorate, bacon is always welcome.

Members of Congress are each beholden to their districts, not the nation. If they want to get reelected, they have to satisfy the voters of that district. Esteem in the eyes of the nation is of little benefit if the voters in your district are unhappy with you. A favorable editorial in the Washington Post or the respect of the Cato Institute is of little use to a congressman in Wyoming at election time if her constituents are restless.

The quickest and easiest way to satisfy voters is to bring home the bacon. Because every member of Congress wants to be reelected, they all have something in common. Staying in office is one, if not the only, true bipartisan goal in Washington. Because it is bipartisan, most in Congress are willing to work together and seek compromise. They may squabble over details and take umbrage over a scandalous or especially extravagant project. But to the extent they all benefit, more often than not they are willing to accommodate each other.

DeMint is seeking to take aim at "pet projects." The difficulty with Demint's objective is there is no standard by which projects can be judged. A bridge to nowhere or a study of the sexuality of chickens may jump out, but such examples are not common. The vast majority of projects funded are deemed useful, at times even necessary, by those who request the funding. A museum in Missouri or a new highway in Arkansas may be of no value to voters in New York, but they are of value to Missouri and Arkansas. A congressman from New York may gain some advantage from criticising "pork" spending on such projects because he can afford to. He does not rely on voters in Arkansas or Missouri to get reelected. He might be willing to make a trade though.

Very few can, or would argue against a cancer research center or a military base. While there might be dispute over particulars, cancer research centers and military bases are necessary. They have to be somewhere. And, if they have to be somewhere, best it is in your district. The same with other spending. If Washington is going to spend a hundred million dollars to improve the nation's infrastructure, why not start in your district? Every member of Congress has something in his district that needs to be built, repaired, or stimulated. As for the cost, job security in Congress is priceless.

There are ways to curb pork spending. One way would be giving the president a line item veto. That will not happen in our lifetime, or the next. Another way would be to establish and independent panel to review earmarks and assess their merit, assuming agreement could be found on who would sit on that panel, how they would be selected, and what the criteria were as to what precisely constitutes pork spending. The time that would take would all but ensure nothing was passed by Congress, another good reason for an independent panel. Getting a grip on earmarks is on the list of things to do. It might be accomplished right after we succeed in sending a manned mission to Mars.

In any event, earmarks constituted only a minuscule portion of federal spending in the 2010 budget. They should be nowhere near the top of the list.

Defiant in Irrelevancy.

A look at the election results in Texas is informative. There are 32 congressional districts in Texas. Republicans won 23 of them. One they did not win is the district anchored by Austin. To anyone who has spent time in Austin over the last 40 years, that is not in the least surprising. Austin is famous, or infamous depending on your political tastes, for its liberalism. For many in Austin, being liberal is not only assumed, it is expected. It is not a political inclination. It is a way of life. One of the unofficial slogans for the city is "Keep Austin Weird." By weird, they mean idiosyncratic. By idiosyncratic, they mean liberal.

Over the course of a year in Austin, numerous festivals and events are held. Almost all of them fancy themselves as eccentric. Even though many of the festivals, such as Eeyore's Birthday Party, began as informal, eclectic gatherings, they have since become models of organized spontaneity. They are not populist gatherings, they are institutions. Concerts, rallies, parades, marches, and runs, many complete with corporate sponsorship, are held throughout the year to demonstrate Austin's unique flamboyancy. Each one is more assertive than the next. Gay rights, abortion, and immigration are sure ways to gather a crowd of noisy and self righteous protesters. Whether it is a bike race, a rally, a march, or a music festival (the favorite), an enthusiastic and indignant crowd can be counted on to show up.

With the election results in, many in Austin are gnashing their teeth. Not a few are defiant. They are determined to man the barricades lest conservatives seek entry to the city. For those conservatives who live in the city, discretion is often a must. Despite the endless boasts of tolerance by the liberal residents of Austin, little is to be found. Their tolerance rarely extends beyond their sympathies. A careless remark or an inappropriate t-shirt worn in the wrong place risks a verbal assault. If nothing else, it is assured of garnering hostile looks, rudeness, and slow service at Starbucks. Liberals' confidence in their sensibilities breeds in them arrogance that is unpleasant to behold.

Despite the democrat's defeat in the statewide election, liberals in Austin are unbowed. They will not admit defeat. Why should they? They did their part. They did not lose the election. The rest of Texas did. Austin will hunker down behind its walls and seek to defend them against conservative encroachment. Behind the walls, liberals scowl at the capitol and the infidels who have occupied the temple. They console each other and mock those who oppose them. All the while they will be planning the next march or music festival in the hope that it will rally the dispirited and bring in new volunteers.

The democratic victory in Austin only reassures liberals there of their superiority. The city sees itself as a cosmopolitan island surrounded by a sea of rednecks, racists, and rubes and the election results prove it. What they don't see is that they have become largely irrelevant in state politics: republicans avoid it and democrats take it for granted other than to pass through to raise money and wave. A democratic candidate would have to be a former concentration camp guard or a child molester to lose the vote in Austin. Even then it might be close.

Now Comes the Hard Part

With the election results in, it is a fine morning if you are a Republican. The Republicans did very well yesterday. Not only did they gain control of the House of Representatives, they picked up four seats in the Senate and narrowed the Democratic majority to four votes. They also picked up seven governorships, likely even more once the results become official. Now when Obama speaks of his willingness to work with Republicans, he will have to mean it.

For Republicans, the hard part begins. With their victory, the burden of fixing America is on them. They have two years to demonstrate to the voters that they did not make a mistake. Chief among the challenges Republicans face will be fixing the economy. The Democrats still have the votes to thwart Republicans in Congress. If the Republicans over reach and incite Democrats, little will get done in Washington. That is just fine with me, I believe we have enough laws and regulations to at least get us through my lifetime. However, most Americans have come to rely upon Washington to fix things. They rely on Washington to help get them jobs and make sure their children eat right, or, more precisely, to make sure other people's children eat right. The expect Washington to remedy injustice, and ensure that they will be able to retire in comfort. They want Washington to make their neighbors behave and not call them names. Whether Congress is run by Republicans or Democrats, it still must meet the expectations of the public and expectations are high.

The demands of Americans on the federal government are often unrealistic and dangerous. They are unrealistic because there is really not much 536 people in Washington can do to fix a nation with a population and an economy as large as ours. Nor can Washington educate our children or get us jobs. High expectations are dangerous because each failure by the federal government leads to more demands made upon it. If the federal government is unable to fix the economy over the next two years, there will be clamor for even more government, not less. Government failures rarely result in demands for less government.

There is another danger Republicans face as a result of the election. The more ambitious they are, the less likely it is that they will achieve any of their goals. They will need to be patient and pragmatic. If their goal is to repeal Obamacare, they will fail. They just do not have the votes to do so. Additionally, outside the Republican core, the antipathy towards federal health care is not sufficient to sustain a prolonged struggle to repeal it, especially a bitter one.

The best approach for republicans regarding health care will be to nibble at it. If republicans focus on nibbling at health care they will force democrats to defend it piece by piece. Although there is antipathy among the general electorate towards Obama's health care plan, some of what is contained in it is popular, at least in principal. Providing health care to people who need it but cannot afford it is a difficult thing to criticize, especially when you consider the program has not yet been felt. At this stage it is still largely an idea, and not a bad one. Even if national health proves to be a disaster, it is not a disaster yet.

A full scale assault on Obama's policies would allow democrats to defend the popular aspects and over look the unpopular ones. Republicans could be easily side tracked and put on the defensive if they can be portrayed as indifferent to people in need. It would not be difficult for democrats to find people in difficult circumstances who are benefiting from the legislation and put them on TV. Republicans would be seen as doctrinaire and heartless. If health care becomes a contest between angry people and suffering people, suffering people will win.

Republicans should adopt a tactical approach and force democrats to defend their policies and legislation piece by piece. If they are compelled to defend them piece by piece, especially the least popular ones, they will suffer for it. Whether or not Republicans have the patience to nibble will be an important factor in their success.

To simply tilt at windmills and harangue Obama and Democrats will do Republicans no good. Neither will proposing ambitious policies only to fail. The problem is many Republicans ran on bold promises to undo what Obama and the Democrats have done. In an ideological struggle Republicans may gain in the short term among the more enthusiastic of their supporters, but they will risk alienating a major portion of the electorate.

For better or worse, most Americans simply want to earn a comfortable living and be left alone. If the economy improves and Republicans can reduce the burden of government by lowering taxes and reducing regulation, they stand to gain mightily. If the Republicans try to change the nation by picking fights and proposing an ambitious agenda they will only incite Democratic opposition and sour the public. The Democrats are chastened but they are not defeated.

If Republicans want to build on their success they will need patience. They need to focus on achieving small victories and avoid mud fights and spectacular defeats. That will be no small task given the zealousness of the Tea Party supporters who will claim credit for the Republican victory. They have won at Concord, but it is still a long way to Yorktown. Militias and citizen soldiers will not be enough. They will need a disciplined army under unified leadership before it is through.

Necessary Force?

In the news today, a jury in Winnfield, La. yesterday found a former police officer not guilty of manslaughter in the death of Baron Pikes. Pikes died after officer Scott Nugent used a taser gun on him repeatedly. Pikes was even tased as he lay on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. The reason for the repeated tasings according to Nugent is that Pikes refused orders to get up. Nugent tased Pikes again later while in the back seat of the police car for refusing to get out when ordered. In all, Pikes was tased eight times. Nugent was later fired for his actions.

Pikes was not armed and posed no threat Nugent. It was not mentioned in the article why a trained police officer felt it necessary to resort to using a taser against a hand cuffed man, even when that man was sitting in the back seat of his patrol car. Perhaps Nugent had just had his nails done and didn't want to risk breaking or scuffing them. Maybe he just didn't want to get his dress dirty.

Greetings from the Hills

A Palestinian girls school in Nablus was burned recently. Written on the side of the one of the charred buildings was the message "Greetings from the hills." The message was written by one of the Israeli settlers who live in the hills overlooking Nablus. It was not an isolated incident. Olive groves belonging to Palestinians are frequently targeted by Israeli settlers who uproot and burn the trees. The groves are the mainstay of the local Palestinian population. Israeli authorities are looking into the incident. They look into every incident.

There were no apologies and no remorse among the settlers who live in the hills overlooking Nablus and other Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. Indeed, there was satisfaction and the promise of more such actions. Said one settler, "my efforts will be to assure that [the Palestinian's] future won't be here because this land belongs to the Jewish people." For settlers and their supporters, there is room for only one people in Israel and that people is the Jews.

As the West has moved steadily over the decades towards plurality and multiculturalism, many in Israel cling to an earlier time, and that time was over 3,000 years ago. The West has fallen and risen over the millennia. Empires have come and gone. The West will fall and rise again. Israel, or at least the idea of Israel, has endured and will endure. There is nothing anyone can do to change that, least of all the Palestinians and their girls schools and olive trees.

God has chastised Israel in the past. If He is ever moved to chastise Israel again, it is unlikely to be at the hands of the Palestinians. It almost certainly won't be by olive groves and girls schools.

Cultural Ends and Means

Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, caused a stir recently with her comments about diversity. She criticized the doctrine that people of diverse and disparate cultures and religions can live side by side in harmony. (The fact that she is German added to the controversy.) She said that multiculturalism has "utterly failed". Her comments quickly drew the ire of multiculturalists around the world.

Some attributed her remarks to the dark streak of ignorance and fear that is always lurking just below the surface of civilization. Those resistant to the idea of multiculturalism are seen as victims of a limited horizon: a horizon constricted by the familiar and the customary. Whether through habit, fear, or ignorance, those who refuse to embrace multiculturalism are viewed as being on the wrong side of history. The world is moving towards multiculturalism and people have to adapt.

Multiculturalism is heralded as an engine of progress. For its advocates, it represents the transcending of narrow and parochial views in favor of cosmopolitan ones. The benefit is new perspectives and an added richness brought about by exposure to new customs and ideas. Society is shaken out of its complacency by the contrast between the established culture and that brought by immigrants. Things that had previously been taken for granted and assumed are reevaluated. Some gain new luster, some are discarded as anachronistic or counterproductive. Society is improved and reinvigorated. This is the view held out by advocates of multiculturalism anyway. This view has merit but it overlooks much.

Culture is not an abstract idea. Cultures are not merely differences of language or simple habits and tastes. They are not fashions or adornments. They are complex systems of beliefs, customs, and behaviors. They are sources of identity. Culture is what differentiates one people from another. Disparate people can live side by side. Disparate cultures are another matter entirely. Beliefs are personal. Cultures are public.

It is important to distinguish between values and beliefs and the expression of those values and beliefs. Different people can share the same values but rely upon different means to express them. Where this is the case, multiculturalism can be a benefit. When social values are shared, the introduction of new perspectives and approaches can deepen and enrich them. Cultures which share the same values can coexist even where the expression of those values differ. One culture may show respect for its elders through gift cards or a night on the town. Another culture may demonstrate its respect through ritual dance. The difference between the two may be jarring, but it is possible for them to coexist because, at their core, they express the same values and sentiments.

When values and beliefs are not shared the real tension ensues. For example imagine of a culture where elders are ridiculed and mocked. Could such a culture exist alongside a culture where elders are respected? Can a culture that exalts the natural world coexist with a culture that strives to exploit it? Can a culture in which women are secluded from men exist alongside a culture in which women are encouraged to mingle among men? A culture in which privacy is jealously guarded can be offended and bewildered by cultures in which privacy is merely an afterthought. A community that observes a strict sense of decorum is easily unsettled by a culture that embraces life with abandon.

Yet even if values are shared, turmoil can occur. Small differences, such as whether eye contact is a sign of respect or an act of contempt, can cause considerable friction. A gregarious, emotive culture will coexist with a formal and reserved one only with difficulty. Different cultures may coexist physically, but they cannot coexist socially without disturbing each other and breeding resentment. One will have to yield. The question is which? The guest or the host?

Where one culture offends the sensibilities of another, coexistence is problematic. If there is tolerance, it will be a resigned tolerance if only because the effort to remove or suppress the offending culture would cost more than what is hoped would be gained by the effort.

Proponents of multiculturalism frequently assert that their support is based on principal. However, those principals are selective. The principals they choose must fit within their sensibilities. They are not in the least reluctant to resort to law and compulsion to challenge principals they find objectionable. They may feign to respect diverse cultures and customs but let one adhere to a culture or religion whose customs and traditions violate multiculturalist sensibilities and one will soon feel their disdain.

To pretend that culture is simply a matter of taste and expression is simplistic. Contrary to popular belief, multiculturalism is more complicated than pride days, parades, and the international food court at the mall. But to multiculturalists who believe they have transcended custom and social mores and live in a world above and beyond the parochial concerns that plague the rest of mankind, it is the future. For them, multiculturalism is not a means to an end, it is the end. To modern elites, culture is theater and all values are subjective but their own.

A Necessary Provocation

On Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given a gift by the leader of the Hezbollah while visiting Lebanon. The gift was an Israeli rifle in a felt lined box. The rifle was captured during Hezbollah's war with Israel in 2006. Ahmadinejad later went on to give a speech in a town near the Israeli border where he told a crowd that "the world should know that the Zionists will perish." Both Israel and the U.S. condemned Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon as an "unnecessary provocation".

Yesterday, Israel announced that it would end its temporary restrictions on building in East Jerusalem and resume construction on contested land seized during the 1967 Middle East War in defiance of U.S. and international calls not to. The move outraged Palestinian leaders and was quickly criticized as a blow to the peace process. Washington is disappointed. Israel is determined. The Palestinians are furious. The move was seen by many as a provocation.

Iran's threats are a danger to Israel's existence. Israel's actions are a threat to Palestine's existence. Although one cannot equate the call for Israel's destruction with a resumption of building on contested land, both moves are provocative and threats to the peace process. A major difference is that while Iran is blustering, Israel is bulldozing.

Ahmadinejad is known for his incendiary rhetoric. Israel is known for its resolve. The threat Iran poses to Israel is serious but not immanent: nor will it be for some time, if ever. His statement poses no real threat in the West Bank to the peace process. The resumption of building in East Jerusalem is concrete and immanent. It is a very dangerous threat to the peace process. Every new Israeli settlement, every Palestinian evicted and every Palestinian house destroyed strengthens the Hezbollah and their allies in Iran and makes it more difficult for Palestinian leaders to keep talking. At times it seems that Israel's idea of peace is Palestinian submission.

The moves by both countries were likely made with an eye towards placating hard line elements. Ahmadinejad's comments were quickly condemned as an "unnecessary provocation" by leaders in Israel and the U.S. Israel's actions, on the other hand, were described by Washington merely as a "disappointment".

In a sense, both actions were necessary. For Ahmadinejad to retain power, he must placate the hard right in Iran and the hard right demands a tough stance on Israel. Furthermore, it is very much to his advantage to keep domestic attention focused outward on Israel, and by extension the U.S. and off domestic issues. It gives him more latitude in his attempts to keep his grip on power. For Netanyahu and his government, the decision to resume building in East Jerusalem is a necessary provocation if they want to remain in power. Netanyahu needs the Israeli right if he is to stay in power and the Israeli right wants to build settlements. Both policies do much to increase tension in the region.

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is privately delighted by the news in Israel. He loses nothing when Palestinian land is seized and houses are destroyed, but he gains much. A contented, prosperous Palestine would be a great blow. Hard liners in the region need conflict and tension if they are to survive. Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was far from unnecessary.

Immigration: It Is Not That Simple

In the sometimes contentious debate over immigration, it is frequently asserted that all Americans in one way or another abet illegal immigration. The argument by those who support, or at least sympathize with illegal immigration, is that the majority of Americans participate in it one way or another. Americans eat vegetables picked by illegal immigrants. Americans make use of the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide to hold labor costs down. Americans eat at restaurants staffed by illegal immigrants. In many more such ways Americans utilize the cheap labor afforded by illegal immigrants. They are correct. But where they err is in confusing participation with complicity.

When someone buys a house, that person cannot check whether the house was built using illegal immigrant labor. When a person eats at a restaurant, she cannot verify the immigration status of the kitchen staff. Neither can a hotel guest know whether the maid is in the U.S. legally. There are no signs marking whether the road one drives on is tended to by legal or illegal labor. One cannot ask park workers for their documents.

It is true that Americans benefit in many ways from illegal immigrants. But that does not make Americans complicit. When customers are able to walk down an aisle at the grocery store and choose between items labeled as to whether they were harvested by legal or illegal immigrants or hire a contractor knowing whether those in his employ are here legally or illegally, we will have a better idea as to the degree to which Americans support or oppose illegal immigration. When Americans can buy a house or rent an apartment with knowledge of whether it was built using legal or illegal labor we can gain insight into their views on immigration.

Until that day arrives, we can only assume and speculate. It is likely that day will never arrive. And, if that day ever arrives, it will be greeted with howls of protest from those who would conflate the choice such information provided with an invitation to racism and prejudice.

Many Americans, but certainly not all, do benefit from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But that does not make them accomplices.

Believing It Doesn't Make It So

Andy Moreno is upset. Moreno, a senior, has been disqualified from running for homecoming queen at North Dallas High School. The reason Moreno was disqualified is that Moreno is a man. Moreno believes he should be allowed to compete for Homecoming Queen because, despite his male biology and physiology, he identifies himself as a woman. Technically Moreno is "transgendered". Transgendered is the term of choice for people in Andy's predicament. The school has told Moreno he is free to run for king, but he doesn't want to be a king. He wants to be a queen. Queer Liberation, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rights group, is preparing to go to court to defend Moreno's right to be a queen.

Moreno asserts he is a woman because he believes he is a woman. For Moreno and his supporters, that is enough. However "male" and "female" are not social, psychological, or cultural designations. They are biological designations. But Moreno and his supporters refuse to yield to biology. They insist that biology is irrelevant.

Moreno is free to believe he is anything he wants. He can believe he is a woman. He can believe he is a wizard. He can believe he is Queen of England for that matter. But believing it does not make it so. Neither does feeling it. Moreno has the right to dress like a woman. He has the right to behave as a woman. He has the right to believe he is a woman. But he does not have the right to be a woman. That is a right no Earthly institution can grant.

The human mind may know no limits. But nature does. If people want to contest with nature, that is their prerogative. However, they should be prepared to lose. They always do. Andy Moreno may believe he is a woman. He may dress as a woman. He may behave as a woman. He may someday obtain status as a woman. He may even have surgery to appear as a woman. But he will never be a woman. That is not because of ignorance, intolerance or bigotry. That is because of nature. If Moreno has an objection with nature, he will have to take it up with a higher authority than North Dallas High School.

Moreno is not demanding that he be left alone or tolerated. He is demanding that he be embraced. In doing so he is not simply asking for something that belongs to him, he is demanding something be given to him. He is demanding the approval and respect of others whether they want to give it or not.

Moreno has vowed to fight on. He may think he is fighting North Dallas High School, but in truth he is fighting something out of his league. It is out of every one's league.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You.

With a poor economy and a sour electorate, many candidates have decided to try and redirect voter ire towards China. Candidates around the country have begun to run ads portraying their opponents as being soft on trade and selling the U.S. out to China. Many of the ads have been harsh. One run by democrat Jack Space of Ohio shows a giant dragon thanking his republican opponent for the help he has provided to China. Others show ominous pictures of Chinese factory workers, presumably laboring to undermine the U.S. Not a few show pictures of abandoned factories, implying that they are shuttered due to Chinese subterfuge and capitalist greed. Some ads have even found room for pictures of Chairman Mao. China is an easy target for politicians. If nothing else, it makes Americans feel better by absolving us, (and our leaders of course), of blame for our predicament. Besides, the Chinese cannot vote in the U.S.

The U.S. is indeed in a precarious position in regard to China, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Much of the blame that does not belong to corporations seeking to maximize profits falls on American consumers. After all, they are the engine driving the demand for cheap goods. Unless you are a carpenter or a true patriot, there is no reason to buy a $50 hammer made in the U.S. at the hardware store if you can buy a $15 Chinese hammer at Wal-Mart. The Chinese are simply doing what the U.S. used to do best, meeting demand at as low a cost possible. If there was no demand for cheap goods or services, there would be no need to import them. Even though China has engaged in practices and maneuvers designed to give them an advantage in trade, those maneuvers and practices are not the cause of the issue. Blame the economy or blame the consumer. Blame business or blame labor. Blame Washington or blame Wall Street. Just don't blame the Chinese. They are simply doing business. 19th century business perhaps, but business nevertheless.

Worse still, the U.S. is not simply importing hammers and concrete from China. It is importing money. There is serious concern in many quarters regarding the growing reliance of the U.S. on China to manage its debt and meet its budget. Campaign rhetoric about jobs and trade to the side, the issue of U.S. borrowing is a grave one. Many fret that it is giving China too much leverage over the U.S. There is also the concern that we are contributing to the rise of a wealthy, sophisticated new opponent on the world stage.

One result of this apprehension is the visceral attacks on China becoming popular in many political races. There are even hints by some that, if necessary, the U.S. can retaliate by reneging on its debt. The costs of doing that would most likely be more severe than continuing to carry the debt. Perhaps if the U.S. were truly self sufficient it might be a credible option. But the U.S. is not self sufficient. It needs trade or it will collapse. Trying to replace China as a trading partner, to say nothing of being a creditor, would be near impossible.

China has been instrumental in keeping the U.S. afloat for some time now. But its help has come at a great price. It is estimated that the U.S. is in China's debt to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Because the burden of the debt has not yet truly been felt, the U.S. has been content to go on about its business, so to speak. The trade deficit and mounting debt often comes down to the issue of who needs who more. Many argue that China needs the U.S. as a market for its exports. The idea that China needs America is of comfort to many. It is believed that China would never act against us because of it. Others note that the U.S. needs China to finance our economy. They are both right. But the harsh rhetoric emerging from politicians regarding China is dangerous. Not only does it distort a complex issue by reducing it to brief images and slogans, it amounts to biting the hand that feeds you. Until the U.S. can feed itself, it should refrain from biting that hand. Cheap hammers we can get anywhere. A trillion dollars is another matter.

China is a proud country. They will not react well to sustained abuse by U.S. politicians. To antagonize China for political gain is short sighted. But someone has to be blamed for the dismal economy. If all else fails, blame China and their Fifth Column in Washington. There will be time to make it up to them after the election.

If the U.S. was really serious about addressing the economic challenge China represents to the U.S., it should reconsider relying upon China to balance our checkbook. But, like hunger, no one suffers from future privation. Neither does one lose elections on future suffering.

Fading Hope and Little Change.

There is great interest in next month's election. Many Republicans anticipate picking up a good number of seats, even a majority in the House and Senate. Many Democrats fear it. President Obama is one. A Republican victory would be a significant hindrance to his ambitions and a major blow to his ego. Obama is convinced he is a man of destiny. A Republican victory would demonstrate otherwise.

Obama has been campaigning hard for fellow Democrats. Obama's presidential campaign centered around hope and change. Obama asserted that under his administration, things would get better. The "failed policies of the past" would be replaced by new policies that would bring about jobs and prosperity. They haven't. Things are still not well with the U.S. The failed policies of the past have given way to the failed policies of the present.

Two years ago when he was running for president, one of Obama's stock lines was that the Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch. The economy is still in a ditch. The Democrats have been in power for two years. They cannot blame the Republicans, although they are trying to desperately. The fact is they have no one to blame but themselves. Obama said he could get fix the economy. He hasn't. In fact, Bloomberg predicts that the unemployment rate will be higher at the end of Obama's term than it was when he took office. The unemployment rate was at 7.7% when Obama took office. It is now at 9.6%. Things are so grim at the moment that even the government is laying off workers

The hope that Obama promised two years ago has faded after two years of economic malaise. The change Obama promised has been elusive. Partisan conflict in Washington is worse than it has been in many years. Obama's monumental ambition and heavy hand in pushing his agenda have increased antagonism in Washington, not lessened it. Despite the rhetoric of the White House, resistance to Obama's agenda was largely based on principal, not on spite. It was the White House and the democrats who sought to portray opposition to the administration's agenda as based on politics and petulance. After all, Obama had won the election by such a large margin, clearly America embraced him. And, if America embraced Obama, it must have meant that they embraced his agenda. To oppose Obama verged on opposing America.

The administration can point its finger and make excuses for the struggling economy. They can comb the statistics finding nuggets of positive news. But Americans are still struggling, not just to find jobs, but to keep them. The ones with jobs might feel a little better with Obama's assurances, but to those without jobs and those struggling to make ends meet, statistics and press releases matter little.

Obama spoke about hope and change. People elected him because they hoped things would change. Thing haven't changed. Things have gotten worse. After being in charge for two years, the car is still in the ditch. Try as he might, Obama can't blame the Republicans for that.

We know how America feels about the economy. It will not be long before we find out how America feels about Obama and the democrats.

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

It was reported this morning that spending by interest groups for next month's Congressional elections is five times what it was two years ago. $80 million has been spent so far alone for next month's election. The amount will go up. Government is bigger now than it was then. It also controls more than it did then. Of the many who associate interest group spending with corruption, the increase in spending is blamed on last year's ruling by the Supreme Court that freed groups from campaign financing rules that greatly crimped funding by large groups such as business, manufacturers, and medical associations. Additionally, the ruling removes the requirement that campaign donors be identified. Predictably, the left is in an uproar since they often are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising campaign funding from large, well funded sources. But they really have no one to blame but themselves.

Over the course of the last century, Washington has become the center of the economic and political universe largely due to the efforts of the left. Decisions made there affect every facet of American life. From agriculture and education to manufacturing and finance, there is very little that is not under federal purview. Because of this, very few people, institutions, and businesses can afford to be indifferent to what goes on in Washington. Decisions made there can affect not just factories and businesses, but whole industries and communities. It should not be surprising that many people and groups are not content to simply read about legislation in the newspaper.

Washington has also become the center of the social universe. Marriage, and child rearing, for example, have become matters of federal concern thanks to the left. What your children eat, or don't eat; read or don't read are no longer issues of concern only to parents. They are public issues. Because they are public issues, they are political issues.

It is the left that works so diligently to find the political aspect of everything in a manner that would impress communists and Jesuits. Once that aspect is located, it is to be manipulated in a manner suitable to their sensibilities. What the left didn't, and still doesn't, understand is that they do not have a monopoly on government manipulation. The tools and institutions put in place to achieve the ambitions of the left do not belong to them. They belong to whomever happens to be in office. It is naive of the left to believe that their opponents will never be in charge of the programs and institutions they have worked so hard to create. It is the right that is being naive if they believe that once they are in charge, they will stay in charge.

One of the chief consequences of the federal behemoth created by the left is the struggle for its control. The greater the stakes, the greater the struggle. The greater the struggle, the more money it will cost. If the left is at a disadvantage it is their own fault. They are the ones who raised the stakes by expanding federal government.

The vast amount of money that is being spent, and will be spent, on elections should not be blamed on selfishness or avarice on the part of interest groups and their constituents. Interest groups and, by extension their constituents, are simply trying to influence an institution that has come to have a great deal of power over how and under what conditions they can operate. It is all but impossible to go about one's affairs and be indifferent to what is going on in Washington. Whether one is a farmer, an auto worker, a lawyer or a doctor, what goes on in Washington can significantly affect one's life and livelihood. Some might be content to go the the polls every other year and cast a vote and cross their fingers. Those who aren't should not be blamed or criticized for looking out for their own interests.

Any law with the size, reach, and budget of the new health care act is a bonanza for lobbyists. So much money is involved and so many issues, industries and people are affected by it that it will attract lobbyists like a dead possum attracts flies. Countless people will want something out of it. Countless more will want to avoid something in it. Everyone will seek to find some advantage in it. All of them will spend great deals of money to achieve their goals. If politicians in Washington wanted to find a better way to increase campaign donations and guarantee job security for lobbyists than passing gargantuan legislation like the health care and financial bail out acts, they would be hard pressed.

Lobbyists and interest groups are not to blame for the financial circus that surrounds elections. Whenever an election touches on a major issue or portends change, those who might be affected mobilize. Washington is the problem. Washington is the Mount Everest of politics. Lobbyists and interest groups are simply Sherpas hired to help people to the top.

Who is the Finger for?

A new sculpture recently went up in front of the stock exchange in Milan, Italy. It is causing no small amount of controversy. Many find the sculpture offensive. The artist claims that the sculpture is intended to mock the Nazi salute. I don't see it.

Nevertheless, I believe the sculpture is entirely appropriate, except for one thing. It is facing the wrong way. Given the recent economic difficulties in Europe, the sculpture should be turned around to face the stock exchange. As it is, it appears that the stock exchange is flipping off the public in an act of contempt. On second thought, that just might be the point.

Someone should see about getting one of those for Wall Street. Washington too. They could put it right in front of the Capitol.

It is Not Rocket Science. It is Harder.

George Washington University recently completed a study on obesity and concluded that not only is obesity a large health problem, it is also a financial burden. The reason it is a financial burden is because obese people cost more than thin people.

The report concluded that an obese woman, in addition to suffering the indignity of being obese, can expect to lose $4,870 each year in wages and productivity. The average obese male loses $2,646 in wages annually. The study also found two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. There are other costs as well. Those costs include medical costs, and short term disability. Obesity even affects our national security. The typical obese male requires an additional $23 in gasoline to transport his bulk to and fro. An obese female requires an additional $21 making us more dependent on foreign oil.

It is hoped by some that the findings of the study will be additional motivation for Congress to tackle the issue. It is likely the government will do so. Once an issue gains status as an issue affecting the economy, the government usually gets involved. Only the federal government can address a national problem and it is argued that obesity has become a national problem.

It is not a national problem. It is a personal problem that unfortunately is all too common. It is not a matter of education as some like to claim. Neither is the problem a lack of information. Everyone knows that if you eat too much and do not exercise you will get fat. It is not a secret. Everyone knows that you can lose weight by eating less and exercising more. The wide spread growth of nutritional information on food products places a wealth of information in the hands of consumers. Even McDonald's provides nutritional information on the food it serves. If that labeling is not helpful it is because people do not take the time to read it or don't care. Neither problem will be solved by more government or blue ribbon panels.

The problem is people. Losing weight and getting fit can be difficult. It requires time and effort. Many people do not want to spend time and effort. That is why the market for miracle weight loss plans and magical drinks and pills is so lucrative. This is where the government comes in. It is believed that the government can succeed where willpower, state of the art machines, magical pills and drinks cannot. After all, if we put a man on the Moon (the Gold Standard of the efficacy of government), we can get people to lose weight.

Obesity does not just happen. People do not wake up one morning 50lb.s overweight. It takes time and lack of effort. Government is not going to change that. Just because we put a man on the moon does not mean we can get Johnny, or his parents to eat right or lose weight. We can't even get Johnny to do his homework.

Getting people to lose weight is not rocket science. It is harder. Science deals with identifiable and quantifiable principles that can be manipulated and measured. Obesity deals with people and human nature. All of the regulations and policies in the world cannot change human nature. Obesity may be a case of cause and effect. Human nature is not. Human nature is the x factor in all social planning. We can tell people how to lose weight, but we cannot make them do so.

Taxing food and penalizing the obese will not make people thinner. It will just make them poorer. There is already a correlation between poverty and obesity. We might just make things worse. If junk food become illegal, only criminals will eat junk food. There will be a lot of new criminals and many of them will be fat.

Not Your Father's Immigration

When immigration is put into historical context, the issue appears less alarming. As is commonly noted, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. It always has been.

In the 17th century, thousands of European immigrants (sometimes referred to as colonists) arrived in North America and forever changed it. Thousands more began arriving soon after. It was not long before tens of thousands had arrived. Later, hundreds of thousands began arriving. Between 1836 and 1914, over 30 million new immigrants arrived. In 1907, 1,285,350 arrived on our shores: an impressive number considering the population of the U.S. was just 87 million at the time. As was the case in earlier waves, the vast majority of those immigrants were from Europe. Indeed, Europeans comprised the majority immigrants entering the U.S. as late as 1970 when they made up 60% of all new arrivals. By 2000, the proportion of immigrants arriving from Europe had dropped to 15%.

The number of immigrants arriving in the U.S. has gone up dramatically over the decades. 250,000 immigrants arrived in the 1930's. 2.5 million arrived during the 1950's. Another 7.3 million arrived during the 1980's. From 1990 through 2,000, 10 million more arrived. In 2010, 25% of all people in the U.S. under 25 are immigrants or children of immigrants. Measuring immigrants in the U.S. is an inexact science. It is likely the numbers are higher.

All immigrations are not alike. Every wave has been different. Most were unwelcome. Each changed America; some dramatically, some subtlety. What distinguishes modern immigration from the earlier ones is that the earlier immigrations all ended. Millions of Irish immigrated to the U.S., then they stopped coming. Millions of Germans came to the U.S. But they stopped coming too. The same can be said about Chinese, Hungarian, and Dutch immigrants. Each period of mass immigration was tumultuous. There was friction and hostility between the new immigrants and the citizens of the communities in which they put down stakes. But over time, immigration subsided and the new immigrants settled in and assimilated into U.S. culture. They really didn't have a choice. Cut off from reinforcements and lacking modern communications, it was inevitable they would eventually blend with their new communities. While there are still enclaves where Dutch, Chinese, and Italian are spoken and festivals are held, the Dutch, Chinese, and Italians who came to the U.S. have long since become indistinguishable from any other American: they are American.

The current wave of immigration from Mexico is distinct from earlier waves of immigration to the U.S. in several ways. Not the least of the differences is the geographical proximity of immigrants to their home country. Also, the U.S. has become much more accommodating to immigrants. Services are provided and concessions are made that would have been unimaginable to immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Technological advances, like television, radio, telephones, and the Internet all work against assimilation by allowing new immigrants to effortlessly retain cultural and emotional ties to their homeland.

Perhaps the biggest difference between current immigration and earlier waves is that it is not stopping. In 1970, immigrants were 4.7% of the population. That number has been going up steadily. In 2010, the percentage had risen to 10%. It will keep going up. There is no way of stopping it: at least no civilized way to stop it. But it can be brought under control.

To get a sense of the magnitude of immigration, consider California. In 1970, European Americans comprised 80% of the population of that state. In 2008, that percentage had dropped to 42.3%. A change of that size cannot be overlooked or shrugged off. Getting immigration under control does not mean machine guns, mass deportations and concentration camps. It means enforcing laws that already exist and taking steps to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.

Immigration is not a force of nature. It is a human phenomenon. Something can be done about it. The question is what. We cannot know what we should do unless we talk about it. We cannot talk about it if one side is continually accused of racism and xenophobia. It is possible to have a discussion about immigration without resorting to insults and invectives. It is uncommon, but it is possible.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, 25% of the U.S. population will be of Hispanic decent. While some current studies report that immigration, legal and otherwise, is slowing, mostly due to the poor economy, it is not stopping. It will never stop. We are conducting a social experiment of immense proportions that is transforming our nation. Nevertheless we are told not to worry and that everything will work out fine: it always has before. But this is not our father's immigration. It is something new and unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. That is why so many are apprehensive.

We cannot stop immigration. We should not stop immigration. But we should get it under control. In order to get it under control we need to try to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is by definition uncontrolled immigration.

Slow Going in Afghanstan

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, there was an article written by Rod Nordland about Afghanistan and the deteriorating security situation there. The U.S. has been hoping to be able to turn over security in the country to Afghan forces. It has been training Afghan soldiers to that end for several years. The transition has been going more slowly than planned. What was of particular interest in the story was the photograph that accompanied it.

In the photo, a U.S. soldier and his Afghan counterpart are in an alley, their attention focused down the street. The U.S. soldier lays prone, looking through his sight, weapon ready to fire. The Afghan soldier is standing in the street straddling his weapon, arms folded. The photo could be hung in any basic training barracks as an example of how not to man a position: and people wonder why we have been in Afghanistan so long.

That U.S. soldier will be going home soon. When he does, that Afghan soldier will be standing in the street by himself. At least he didn't have his hands in his pockets. Some of the training must be sticking.

The Wrong Lesson

As the U.S. economy continues to languish and the federal debt mounts, debate swirls around how the government should respond. Democrats continue to urge more deficit spending. When in a pinch, the example of FDR spending the U.S. out of the Great Depression is brought to the fore. Yet despite FDR's impressive New Deal spending in the years leading up to WWII, the results were mixed. More important was the massive deficit spending that occurred as the war picked up steam and the economic boom that followed. There is a school of thought that understands deficit spending as a form of investment. Even though the economic crisis of the 1930's and increased federal spending that followed can be compared and evaluated with the current situation, the effect of WWII on the economy cannot.

The real explosion in deficit spending by FDR came in response to WWII. Certainly, a great deal of money was spent during the depression. The U.S. debt increased by $33 billion fighting it in the 1930's. But that is dwarfed by what was spent fighting WWII. Over the course of the war, the debt grew by $222 billion. During the Great Depression, millions of people were put to work, but they were put to work building dams and paving roads. During WWII, people were put to work making and building things, real things like ships, tanks, and trucks while gaining skills that would be useful after the war. Millions of men were put to work in the military and merchant marine. Millions of women were put to work making and doing things that had been done by men who were no longer available to do them. Even people of the fringe of U.S. society like African Americans gained employment in record numbers.

After the war, the U.S. economy continued to thrive as it labored to rebuild Europe and Japan and tend to needs neglected during the war. The industrial capacity gained in the war served the U.S. well. Millions of dollars were made and millions of people were put to work making and selling cars, construction material, and machinery to a world in desperate need of such things. Service men who had been taken off the farm and out of small towns and mills had a taste of the world and headed off to college to pursue careers and opportunities unimaginable to them prior to the war.

Yes, government spending was important during the Great Depression. But while it kept many Americans above water it did little else. It was WWII that pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression and created an economic boom that lasted decades, not the New Deal. The government spent mightily during the depression: more than it had ever spent before. But it was the spending caused by fighting a world war that made the real difference and transformed the U.S. into a modern economic power. It was the economic boom that followed the war and the explosion of college educated workers caused by the GI bill that created the middle class that has become the paradigm of U.S. prosperity, not the New Deal

The wistfulness of many for the New Deal is just that. To point to the New Deal and ignore WWII is a common flaw on the part of those nostalgic for the days when government expansion was at its height. The transformation of the U.S. into a progressive and cosmopolitan culture was a result of the changes brought about by a generation of college educated Americans no longer limited to the horizon afforded by life on a farm or in a factory. That transformation was not brought about by politicians, bureaucrats and planners. It was brought about by people seeking to improve themselves and their lives.

It is true the government was instrumental in bringing about that college educated generation through the GI bill. But the GI bill was only effective in conjunction with a generation that wanted to attend college and take advantage of the opportunities that education would offer. But there is a lesson here as well. Government is much less effective when it comes to making people do what they are disinclined to do. Government cannot create engineers no matter what it spends. It can only help people who want to be engineers become engineers.

Many hail the New Deal as a model for stimulating the economy and urge a reprise. Few credit world war. But one cannot use the New Deal as a model and ignore WWII. The New Deal mitigated the suffering caused by the Great Depression. It did not end it. If we hope to see an economic recovery even approaching the one that followed WWII we need to find away to spur an explosion of economic activity like that which followed the war. Raising taxes and expanding government are not the ways to do it.

Government spending dropped dramatically after WWII. We are not fighting a world war. Even if the economy recovers due, or despite, the record spending of the Obama administration, government will not shrink after the crisis is over. It will remain and the costs and bureaucracy associated with it will remain as well. There will be no after.