The Weight of Gold.

In an editorial in Friday's Dallas Morning News, Barbara B. Johnson lays out the sometimes unhappy plight of rich children by noting how affluence can "cheat" children. She cites Madeline Levine's book, The Price of Privilege which chronicles the difficulties rich children sometimes face in growing up. At the top of the list is the "toxic brew" of pressure parents of rich kids often place on their children to to succeed academically and socially and earn admission to prestigious universities. The success and competitive nature of wealthy parents is cited next as a cause of many of the problems besetting rich children. Successful parents expect to have successful children and so they set high goals for them and urge ambition and pressure them to excel. Johnson argues that the high expectations of wealthy parents lead them to put pressure on their children to also achieve success, both inside and outside the classroom. That pressure in turn is a cause for stress because the children feel compelled to succeed. The stress can be even more burdensome when the child's definition of success is not the one being urged by their parents. If high expectations are a cause of stress, our public schools should be filled with content and relaxed children since little pressure is put on them to succeed. The pressure to succeed is most acutely felt by those who are urged or expected to succeed.

The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.

Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.

Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.

Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.

When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.

The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.

Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.

Sound Fiscal Advice

Obama's proposed $3.5 trillion budget is claimed will cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. However, the budget proposed by the administration for 2010 is projected by some to come up $1.7 trillion short. The national debt is predicted to rise to just over $14 trillion by the end of the year. Adding another trillion plus dollars in red ink is a peculiar way to go about cutting the deficit. The projected deficit is an amount just slightly over the nearly $1.7 trillion spent last year to "stabilize" and "stimulate" the economy.

The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.

Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.

It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.

Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.

Show Trial

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the accused terrorist mastermind behind the September 11th attack, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death yesterday by the President of the United States. President Obama declared that Mohammed will "likely be executed for the crimes he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans." Actually, Obama added with gravity that Mohammed's execution is more than just likely. It is certain. "That you can be sure of" we were promised. Among the details that remain to be worked out are where Mohammed's trial will be held and the length of the trial before his conviction and death sentence are formally pronounced. Other details concerning the date, site, and method of Mohammed's execution are still being discussed. The process should not be a long one. While safety and costs are factors in deciding where to hold the trial, New York is the preferred site because it is locus of the crime and a trial there is assured to have the greatest political significance. Wherever it is ultimately held, the trial to formalize the verdict and document the crime will begin later this year.

Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.

I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.

The Allure of Trains.

Federal money was recently awarded to California, Illinois, and Florida to assist them in their development of high speed rail projects. Many championed the awards as a significant step towards helping the environment, ending traffic congestion, and reducing pollution. It is true that rail systems can help achieve those goals. But only if they are used.

Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.

The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.

Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.

Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.

An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.

In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.

Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.

News from Afghanistan

It was reported today that an Afghan tribe signed a pact to "burn down the houses" of those found to have sheltered insurgents. Nothing was said about how the tribe would determine who has sheltered insurgents and who hasn't. The U.S. rewarded the determination and resolve of the tribe and pledged $1.2 million in aid and job programs. It was not said that any houses would actually have to be burned down to ensure the aid. The pledge was enough.

It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.

Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.

In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.

It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.

It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.

No Trials for the Guilty

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, radio talk show host Mark Davis takes President Obama to task for proposing that those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere as terrorists be allowed to challenge their detention in court before a judge. He sneers at the prospect of terrorists being "paraded into federal court...to argue for their innocence." Davis goes on to criticize Obama as exhibiting a "softness [that] rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Clearly, Davis believes that everyone held in Guantanamo is guilty. Why else would they be detained? Davis, and many like him, are satisfied with the government's claim that everyone detained in Guantanamo is guilty. To allow those detained the opportunity to deny their guilt and challenge their detention in court would be the very height of weakness and timidity. To hold hearings to assess the evidence and determine the validity of the charges levied against the detainees - and they are just that; detainees - would be more than a waste of time, it would be perilous because it is claimed the evidence against them is too sensitive to be revealed in court.

Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."

The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.

Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?

Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.

This Year Will Be Different

It is expected that in his upcoming State of the Union Address, President Obama will resolve to quit his spending, or at least get it under control. After a year of excess and extravagant government spending, Obama will vow to sober up and take steps to address the exploding federal deficit. Obama's resolution was forced because his sweetheart, the public, is threatening to leave him if he doesn't. He will promise to quit spending in October, right after he presents his budget proposal. There are still a few things he needs to buy first. After things calm down in the fall, he promises, he will get his spending under control. There is to much stress at work to quit right now. It is hoped that Obama's resolution to cut down will assuage a public increasingly concerned with his excessive and compulsive spending. He will be a new man. A thrifty and responsible man. A simple, hard working man we can trust once again and rely upon to keep a roof over our head and burglars from our door. Things will be different, he will promise, you'll see.

According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.

When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.

It's Not Obama's Fault.

Acknowledging possible defeat on the health care bill, Obama refuses to take any responsibility for the opposition to his plan. It is not facing failure because the plan is flawed. It is the long, complicated political process and the political machinations of those opposed to it that are making it look flawed. The protracted negotiations that threaten health care reform are being criticized by Obama. He asserts that the possible failure of his plan is because those opposed to it are trying to make his health care plan look like a "monstrosity." His plan is not facing defeat because it is a monstrosity he claims, but because the "legislative process" is making it look like one. Moreover, it is asserted that it is not Obama at risk of losing, but the American people. Obama has conceded that, while he might have made some errors in the handling of his health care plan, it is the maneuvering and machinations of the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and their allies in Congress that are putting his plan in jeopardy.

The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.

Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.

Edward's Shame

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally admitted to having an affair with his mistress and fathering a daughter with her. His confession came in advance of a soon to be released book by a former aide where Edward's affair will be chronicled. "It was wrong of me to ever deny she was my daughter" Edwards said solemnly. After denying the affair and his paternity, Edward's confession was finally forced by uncontroversial evidence to the contrary. Edward's previously had attempted to avoid his culpability, even to the point of maneuvering to have one of his aides take responsibility for being the father. Speaking of his daughter, Edwards said "hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." I am sure he hopes we will forgive him as well once we understand.

Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.

Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.

The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.

Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?

The Puzzle of Obesity.

More news on the obesity front: the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force has concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.

Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.

Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.

It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.

The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.

Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.

Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.

The Costs of Obesity

Although the rate of obesity in the U.S. did not rise over the last year, (perhaps due the poor economy), it was reported in this morning's Dallas Morning News that in the U.S. more than two thirds of adults, and a third of children remain overweight. The percentage of "extremely obese" children and young adults has risen from 9 percent in 2000 to fifteen percent today. "We haven't turned the corner yet" said Dr. William Dietz, an expert on obesity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to statistics, the majority of Americans are overweight. Sixty four percent of Americans are described as overweight. Thirty four percent of those are considered obese. Seventeen percent of children were reported as obese. Most of those children were "extremely obese" as measured by the body mass index. Ten percent of of babies and toddlers are "precariously heavy." The statistics, if nothing else, indicate that growth does not stop after puberty. The good news is that the rate of obesity, as troubling as it is, has remained steady over the last five years. The bad news is that the obese are getting even more obese.

The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.

A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.

The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?

If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.

Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.

Hair in the eyes of Texas

The contest in Mesquite, TX over a young boy's hair is dragging on. Four year old Taylor Pugh attended school Tuesday with his long locks flowing. He was promptly sent to the library. The young Pugh and his parents have been in a contest with the school district for the last three months over the length of Taylor's hair. His hair violates the school's dress code because it covers his eyes and falls to his shoulders. Mesquite school district officials have argued that the dress code is necessary to provide an environment free of distraction. Several appeals courts have upheld the legality of student dress codes.

School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.

The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."

Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.

Paying Back the Taxpayers

It was reported this morning that President Obama wants to make sure that the taxpayers are paid back the $700 billion the government provided to troubled financial sector. This is a fine position to take. But I have to wonder, even if the financial sector pays the money back, will the taxpayers really be repaid? Or will it be the government that is repaid?

The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.

Harry Reid's Big Mouth

Republicans are seeking to get some mileage out of Senator Harry Reid's recent comments saying that Obama is "light skinned" and speaks without a "negro dialect." Many republicans relish the opportunity to turn the table on the democrats. Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has called for Reid to resign from the Senate. "There is a standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouth of one of their own" said Steele. There is truth in this. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to give the benefit of doubt when one of their own makes an insensitive or insulting comment. They are inclined to understand it as a misstatement or slip of the tongue signifying no sinister or malicious motivation. If a Republican says something insensitive, or just plain foolish, Democrats are quick to perceive the worst.

Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.

Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.

"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.

If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.

It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.

Knowing When to Take the Blame

On Thursday, President Obama stepped up and took responsibility for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner Christmas day. He had previously criticized the intelligence agencies responsible for preventing just such attacks. After being careful to point out that he was not to blame - it was the "system" that failed - Obama nevertheless decided to take responsibility. "When the system fails," he stated, "it is my responsibility to take the blame." By taking the blame he showed character and demonstrated his resolve to fix what went wrong. His determination to identify and implement the steps necessary to ensure it never happens again redounds to his credit. It is certain he will get applause for taking the blame.

Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.

Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.

There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.

Immigration & Health Care

President Obama and Democratic members of Congress have stated that the health insurance plan being proposed will not cover those illegally in the U.S. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That issue is too politically explosive" said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Despite his assertion, the matter is ambiguous. Some plans being proposed to extend coverage to the uninsured contain no method of determining legal residency. Plans that do require proof of eligibility will rely on easily forged documents such as drivers licences and social security cards. The very same documents often used to fraudulently obtain jobs and other public services. Some states even provide drivers licences to illegal immigrants, further complicating the matter. There is little reason to suppose the federal government would be any more thorough in checking those documents, particularly if there is no sincere desire to authenticate those documents. While it may be true that the bill as worded may be interpreted as disallowing coverage to illegal immigrants, the issue is not so clear cut. An amendment put forward by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving subsidized health care under the bill was defeated, further casting doubt on the government's determination to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.

Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.

If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.

While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.

As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.

The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.

The Joy is in the Details

Amidst the recent tumult over national health care some interesting details were overlooked. According to an article in this mornings Dallas Morning News, only 41 percent of the health goals set by the government in 1990 have been achieved. The results for the goals set in 2000 were even worse, 24 percent. The results forecast for 2010 look to be little, if at all better. The statistics in other areas were equally disappointing. While there were some positive statistics such as a rise in vaccination rates and a reduction in the numbers of strokes and heart attacks, the overall numbers were at best disappointing, especially considering how much money was spent. The poor statistics must certainly have played a role in the government's decision to take things in hand.

It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.

The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?

I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.

Where is the Help?

The food bank in Plano, Texas was rescued by the donations of many in the community who came to its aid after a water pipe broke and ruined much of the groceries it had stored to help families in need. It was reported that dozens came to the food bank's aid. People gave what they could to help. The food pantry was owned by The Giving Charities Movement, a group that helps families in need. They help about 100 families a month who are having trouble feeding themselves. They expect to reopen soon. The Giving Charities Movement is just one of many charities facing difficulties across the nation.

Even with the wellspring of compassion in Washington, and the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent, money is in short supply at the Giving Movement. "It's hard to get donations but it's not hard to get people who need the food" said Cheryl Jackson of The Giving Movement. Judging by the support the Health Care Reform bill received, there is no lack of compassionate people in this country concerned with social justice and willing to help those who are in need. So why are so many charities struggling?

Perhaps Jackson and others like her are looking on the wrong place. Perhaps instead of looking to the community for help, they should be looking to Washington. There is no shortage of charity in Washington. There is no shortage of money either if the cause is deemed noble enough. If nothing else there should be a few crumbs left lying about for groups like The Giving Charities Movement. No doubt for many individuals across the nation who might feel obliged to help groups like The Giving Movement, the explosion of federal spending provides a whole new meaning to "giving at the office."

There are three small charities just down the street from my apartment. They rent small offices in an abandoned elementary school. Some mornings there is a short line in front of the doors. One charity is for the elderly, another is for the hungry. The third is for teens who are pregnant. They are neglected and ignored by most of the community. They are unknown in Washington. With a few thousand dollars those charities could do more for the town I live in than $1 million spent in Washington. I am sure there are many in my town who support the efforts of Obama and liberals in congress to help those in need. Unfortunately, I doubt that many know those three little charities exist. Less do I believe that if they did, many would write them a check. Less still do I believe that they would visit them to see if they could be of assistance.

There are many noble and saintly souls laboring in Washington on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the neglected. Most of them insist on being paid for their efforts. Some insist on being paid well. I imagine few would ever seriously consider inconveniencing themselves beyond earning a check to help those they are employed to labor on behalf of. A hard week working at the office is charity enough.

After victory is achieved for health care reform, many who supported and fought for will celebrate. Some of them no doubt will feel that they have earned a vacation. The poor and the hungry will keep. In the mean time, people will line up at the school down the street every morning, and those three little charities will try to scrape by. The community, like the nation, will just go on about its business comfortable in the idea that the government is taking care of those in need.

Welcome to the Future.

The health-care reform bill has not yet become law and trouble is already brewing. The proponents of sexual abstinence programs are fretting that when national health care becomes law they will lose funding necessary to continue running their programs. In many states and schools abstinence programs are unpopular and poorly funded. Sexual abstinence advocates are working to obtain some of the $50 million that is being earmarked for programs to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease to help fund their operation. Even though there is little question as to the efficacy of abstinence in preventing pregnancy (virgin births are almost unheard of) and sexually transmitted disease, it is not a popular program.

Under the budget signed by President Obama, abstinence programs will no longer be funded. Many groups are hostile to continued funding for abstinence advocacy arguing that there is "clear evidence the approach is unsuccessful." James Wagoner, president of the Washington based Advocates of Youth, decried the effort to obtain funding by abstinence advocates as "a last-ditch attempt by conservatives to resuscitate a program that has proven to be ineffective."

There are many programs in existence to deter teen pregnancy. All of them have been ineffective. So why single out abstinence from among those programs and attempt to cut its funding? There many failed programs to choose from. To pick one failure from among many and single it out for abandonment makes little sense, especially when that method is the only one, when practiced, guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Clearly there is something about programs that advocate abstinence that irritates James Wagoner.

The politicization of health care has just begun. It will only get worse. The future promises many battles like the one begun over sex ed. Many will be much more contentious and involve much larger issues. Welcome to the future.

A Shiny, New Health Care Machine

When President Obama signs the new health care bill into law it will be a historic day for all Americans. The enactment of the Health Care Reform bill will mark the day when another great step was taken to relieve many Americans of the responsibility of providing for themselves, their loved ones, and their neighbors. Because the federal government will take up the task of ensuring access to health care to those unable, and in some cases unwilling to provide it for themselves, many Americans will now be able to go about their business feeling less encumbered by the obligation to help others less fortunate than themselves; or feel burdened by the ill luck of others. Paying one's taxes will be enough to alleviate the conscience of many. Scrooge, no doubt, would be relieved. It will also mark the day when health care ceased to be simply a social, moral, and financial issue, and became an officially political one. The struggle over health care has in many ways only just begun. Many concessions were made and issues ceded. Those issues and concessions will be revisited. Many battles will be fought again. Neither will the dikes erected to contain and limit government control over health care endure for very long. The struggles over health care will outlast us all.

Additionally, many businesses face the new year with trepidation as they try and figure out how the new health care law is going to affect them and their bottom lines. The costs are not clear yet, but for many businesses, those costs will be significant. Many workers employed by those businesses, if they are not apprehensive about their futures, should be. More than a few of them will lose their jobs because their employer will be reluctant, unable, or unwilling to afford the costs of keeping them. Many that don't lose their jobs or suffer a cut in hours, if nothing else, should be pessimistic about their prospects for a raise. Still others will not get a job because businesses will not be able to afford the costs of hiring them. Some businesses will no doubt have to shut their doors.

The costs imposed by the new health care law will be difficult to bear in these hard economic times: a situation now less likely to improve any time soon. More significantly, the expense imposed by the new health care law will have to be borne each month and each year by businesses as long as they are in business. While businesses may be able to plan for the future, they cannot know the future. Whatever the new year brings, their health care costs will not go down, but most likely go up. The easiest way to reduce or control those costs will be to shed workers or cut hours. The second easiest way will be not to hire any new workers.

A shiny new machine now exists in Washington and many are looking forward to seeing what that machine can do. Many on the left believe that the new machine belongs to them. It doesn't. They should start preparing themselves for the day when that machine is no longer under their control.