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.

U.S. Inc.

With the passage of the health care legislation all but assured, it must be concluded that it has been a good year for the CEO of the United States. Although the U.S. is in the red, it has made a number of impressive deals and acquisitions. It has acquired controlling interest in a major automobile manufacturer and secured seats on the boards of others. It is also on the boards of several large banks and investment companies. If things go according to plan, it will soon gain partnership in a great number of hospitals and clinics all over the country and establish the largest health insurance company in the nation. The future looks bright for further expansion and acquisitions.

There will be no dividends for stockholders though. The company did not make a profit this year. Not only did it fail to make a profit this year, the company has failed to make a profit for many years. In fact, it has lost much more money than many had expected and is expected to loose even more in the years ahead. The company does not expect to make a profit anytime soon. This is not an issue of particular concern to the board however, or the stockholders, because the CEO was able to secure operating capital from foreign investors to fund the company's operation and expansion. The CEO has assured the stockholders that revenues will increase and many of the expenditures will be recouped through better and more efficient management and streamlined operation. There is also optimism on the board and among shareholders that the investments made will pay for themselves, if not generate substantial profits, in the years to come after the turmoil and dislocation of those acquisitions subside.

Fortunately for the CEO, neither the board of directors nor the shareholders are at all insistent on making a profit. Indeed, they don't seem to mind one bit if they wind up losing money on the deals. For some odd reason, many of the shareholders do not appreciate that it is their money that is being spent. They are satisfied to believe that what the company owns, they own. And if losing money gets them an interest in the company's operation, even if only symbolically, they are happy to lose it. And since in theory what the company owns they own; the more the company owns, the more they own. To many that is a thing worth more than money: certainly worth more than other people's money,

By most measures, it has been a bad year or so for the company. There is concern that the company faces a loss in its global market shares amidst growing competition world wide. Profits have declined, and expenditures have increased. The company's operations are in the red. There is tension on the board of directors and the CFO is apprehensive about the books. The Legal division is preparing itself for what should prove to be a busy and contentious next few years. There is also concern that politics will play a role in the company's management and its operations might become skewed due to political favoritism and company politics. But this is not a major concern among the board or the shareholders at the moment. Even with all the financial and legal liabilities the company has acquired, the growing red ink on the books, the managerial hurdles that still need to be navigated, and the dissension amongst the board and shareholders, it cannot be denied that the CEO of the Unites States has had a very good year, if somewhat bruising. Whether it was a good year for the United States remains to be seen.

National Legal Care Reform

When the Health Care bill is finally passed, and by all accounts it will be soon, it is likely that Obama and Congress will begin a search for a new dragon to slay. Perhaps after bailing out the economy, providing cars, jobs, and quality, affordable, health care to all Americans, (I am still waiting on my government funded girlfriend), they will see fit to embark upon a campaign for legal care reform.

Like health care, the vast majority of Americans have access to at least a minimum of legal service. When someone is ill and cannot afford to see a doctor, or visit their local health care clinic, they can go to the emergency room. There they are assured they will get at least a semblance of medical care. When someone is arrested or accused, they have access to legal care. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. A public defender will provide at least a semblance of legal care. Like health care, at least until the Health Care Reform bill becomes law, and most likely even after, the quality of legal care one can obtain is predicated on how much one is able to pay for it.

Just as there are horror stories regarding the slipshod health care sometimes provided to the poor and uninsured, there are horror stories to be told concerning the slipshod legal care received by the poor and those unable to pay. People sometimes die due to the poor health care they receive. People, in Texas at least, sometimes die due to the poor legal care they receive. The wealthy provide themselves legal insurance by keeping attorneys on retainer. Though the vast majority of Americans cannot afford that luxury, they should at least have the right to consult an attorney and have adequate, affordable legal care when they need to, rather than just when they are arrested.

For a long time the quality and availability of health care to the poor and uninsured was deemed adequate. Recently, that care was deemed to be not only inadequate, but unfair. It was decided that it would best for everyone involved if all people had access to the same quality care as that available to the insured when injured and ill. The theory is that providing basic health insurance to those heretofore unable to obtain it would be the responsible and ethical thing to do. More importantly, we would be a better, healthier society due to the care that health insurance would be able to provide. We would also be a wealthier society, if only in a manner of speaking, from all the money that would be saved through the practice of preventive medicine by creating and maintaining a healthier public.

The same logic can be applied to the legal industry. In criminal cases, an attorney will be provided if one is unable to afford one. Little is said about the quality of the legal care a court appointed attorney might provide. Only competency is required, not quality or enthusiasm. In that sense, there is little difference between a court appointed attorney and an emergency room. If anything, the quality of care provided in an emergency room often exceeds the quality of service provided by a court appointed attorney. A doctor will often work harder to keep an uninsured patient alive than a public defender will work to keep an innocent client out of prison. This is a disparity that should not be overlooked. Like health, liberty is one the most important things a person can have and one of the most terrible things to lose.

In civil cases, those unable to pay for legal representation can at times rely upon legal aid or pro bono work by civil lawyers. But in neither does one choose the lawyer he wants to represent him. One takes whomever he is fortunate to get, if one is lucky enough to get anyone at all. The truly lucky ones get a lawyer motivated by the case and interested in achieving justice for his client. The less fortunate may get someone who is merely satisfying his or her state bar requirement.

While even the best of lives can be diminished due to poor health, they can also be diminished by the lack of liberty and poverty. In the mind of a citizen, the choice between illness or injury and bankruptcy or incarceration would be an unpleasant one to make. Just as people have suffered, and even died due to the poor and unenthusiastic care hospitals sometimes provide to those unable to pay, many innocent people have been imprisoned and impoverished due their inability to afford good legal care. Many others have received sentences that could have been significantly reduced if they had received quality legal care. A few in Texas might be alive today if they had had better legal representation.

In regards to civil cases, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is even more pronounced. While, depending on one's perspective, the stakes in civil court are less than those in criminal court, that does not mean they are not important or even vital to those involved. Many risk houses, children, livelihoods, and more in civil cases. Losers in civil court may not go to jail, at least not immediately, but they risk being impoverished, deprived, and severely burdened. The quality of legal care available to the average individual in civil court by pro bono attorneys and such groups as Legal Aid is dwarfed be the legal care available to the wealthy. Wealthy plaintiffs, if they cannot outright crush their opponents, can chisel them into submission. Moreover, the better the legal representation, the better the odds of victory. The prospects of the poor in a civil suit are slim indeed unless there is the possibility of a settlement large enough to attract a quality attorney. It is true that the wealthy sometimes lose in court. It is also true the wealthy sometimes die in the hospital. But whether one is going to the hospital or going to court, it is indisputably better to be rich.

Another benefit of providing free legal care is that it would greatly mitigate the acrimony, frustration, and bitterness that frequently leads to violence by those who feel they are being strong armed, cheated, and ignored. The possibility of mediating and litigating disputes that free legal care would provide would go a long way towards reducing the baleful temptation to take matters into one's own hands; an act that often leads to crime. Crime in turn costs money. If nothing else, free legal care might reduce traffic in emergency rooms as well as lighten Judge Judy's case load.

Just as the benefits of liberty can be undermined in the presence of ill health, the benefits good health can be undermined in the absence of liberty. Why would a just and compassionate society allow this disparity to exist? Why would a society so sensitive to the travails of the medically uninsured be so indifferent to the suffering and misery that inadequate legal care causes today in the U.S.? Perhaps it is simply too soon to ask the government to address every disparity and injustice in the U.S. It might also have something to do with the fact that there are many more lawyers in the country than there are physicians.

I suspect that if we had fewer lawyers on Capitol Hill and more doctors and health care professionals, we would be having a very different discussion about how to keep health care costs down and extend medical care to those unable to afford it. Who knows, we might even see the issue of tort reform revisited. Malpractice law and the need to carry malpractice insurance are huge burdens on the health care industry; one that is passed along to health care consumers. Because we have so many lawyers in Washington, the chances to reduce health care costs by removing or lightening the myriad of financial and legal burdens the health care industry has to bear is unlikely at best. We can always hope that because we have so many lawyers in Washington, we have a decent chance of getting tort reform or a national legal care bill introduced. But because we have so many lawyers in Washington, it is quite unlikely we will never see any such bill passed or even proposed. If nothing else, it would be fascinating to see the response of the legal profession to a government attempt to coopt it.

The Cost of Favor

As the vote over national health care looms in the Senate, a list of concessions made to secure votes from senators and the support of interest groups and industry was published in this morning's Dallas Morning News. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska got an exemption from the annual fees proposed in the legislation. Also in Nebraska, a physician owned hospital was exempted from the annual "fees" that will be charged to future hospitals. Senator Baucus, D-Montana, secured exemption for 2,900 residents of Libby, Montana allowing them to sign up for medicare. Senator Dodd, D-Conn. made out better. He was able to obtain $100 million for a new hospital in his state. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., made out equally well, securing $100 million in federal money for her state. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who provided a key vote on the legislation, perhaps made out best of all. He was able to obtain $10 billion for community health centers in his state. The list goes on, and the total goes up.

Interest groups also made out well. Longshoremen were able to obtain protection from new taxes proposed on high risk professions in exchange for their support. Bio tech drug manufacturers won a 12 year exemption from competition, as well as protection from cheaper, generic foreign drugs: an odd concession for a bill that its supporters claim will lower the cost of prescription drugs. Many other exemptions, tax breaks, and loopholes for various industries and professions given to secure their support lay obscured in the Health Care Bill under consideration.

Clearly, votes are not cheap in Washington. Neither is support from industries and professions affected by legislation. It sometimes takes a lot of money to get people to do the right thing. It sometimes takes even more money to get senators to do the right thing; especially if the right thing is a matter of contention. There are many professions where people are paid incentives for their favor: some respectable, some not so respectable. It is disturbing to think Congress is one.

It would be wonderful if someday Congress decided to publish an addendum with each bill after it became law. The addendum would itemize the costs and outlays, if any, of securing the votes of the individual members who supported the bill. It would certainly make for interesting reading as well as help posterity understand the sometimes quixotic behavior of congressmen.

Health Care Pyramid

It was reported that health care legislation was advanced in the Senate and that a vote will be held shortly. It is hoped the vote will occur before Christmas. It is anticipated that the bill will pass. Some in the Senate no doubt feel that its passage will be a welcome present to their constituents. If nothing else, it will give them a little time off. A host of last minute amendments and deals have made the final vote possible although they have created a maze of compromises and amendments guaranteed to ensure that the issue will be revisited often in the future.

The House and Senate bills still must be reconciled, so the deal is not quite done yet. Both bills would compel almost everyone to possess or purchase some form of health insurance. The House bill requires coverage individually or through an employer. The Senate bill simply threatens people with increased taxes if they choose not to purchase insurance. Neither bill would deny coverage or increase premiums due to pre-existing conditions. This is because the government has the luxury of not needing to make a profit to stay in business. Private insurance companies do. Requiring them to insure people almost guaranteed to generate a loss essentially amounts to a tax on insurance companies. The House bill would require businesses that employ more than 50 employees to pay $750 per employee if the government opts to subsidize coverage. What the costs would be if the government does not subsidize coverage is unclear. Congress will also squeeze business by collecting fees from those that receive government subsidies. Presumably those that do not receive government contracts or subsidies will be similarly compelled, if not now, then in the future.

The Senate bill would raise income taxes, and coerce $20 billion from medical device manufacturers. It will also compel individuals and small businesses who do not have, or pay insurance, to get it or face fines. Like the Hose bill, small businesses with more than 50 employees will have to pay a "fee" of $750 per employee. They too, face penalties should they choose not to comply. Like feudal lords of old, the government will charge fees from those who would ply their trade on its land. It would be extraordinary if those fees were not passed along to consumers: just the thing for a sagging economy.

Both bills compel individuals to acquire insurance themselves or through their employers or be fined. In the House bill, everyone would be required to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The penalty proposed is 2.5%. It can be assumed that penalty will go up: taxes and fines always do. The "very poor" can obtain wavers. But, since poverty is a moving target, the costs of providing wavers will shift over the years. For a bill that is claimed to be demanded by the public, it contains an awful lot of compulsion, fines, and threats.

Many other issues and items need to be reconciled, such as coverage for elective procedures, abortion, and illegal immigrants. None of those are issues that will be resolved in any meaningful sense of the word. They will cause headaches for generations to come. If Congress decides to extend coverage to illegal immigrants, it can be expected that it will be an expense that will only increase in cost since it will provide still another incentive for people to sneak into the country. Interestingly, though illegal immigrants will not receive coverage under the health care bill proposed by Congress, they will be not be pursued. As their numbers increase, so will the demands that they receive some kind of coverage. That care will have to be paid for by someone. If nothing else, providing coverage will help the clinics and hospitals that treat them to recoup some of their losses as well help guarantee job security to those who make a living advocating for immigrant rights.

The complexities of both bills is staggering. It is unlikely that there is anyone in Washington who understands them in their entirety. Both bills will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which makes the fact that so few, if any, understand every thing in them all the more troubling. What is consistent in both bills is the effort to strong arm the private sector into making good on the government's promise to provide health care for everyone. National health care may be portrayed an an issue of justice or fairness, but it is also a political and social liability rife with coercion and opportunism that will be haggled over in perpetuity.

There is a misapprehension by many that the government will provide free, or at least "affordable" health care. The bills under discussion do nothing of the sort. Health care will cost billions. Raising taxes on the "rich", and levying taxes, fees, and penalties on business may obscure the costs in the mind of taxpayers, but it does not reduce them. Trillions will be spent on health care. That money will need to come from somewhere. It would take an economic recovery of near biblical proportion to increase tax revenue enough to compensate for the cost of everything being proposed in Washington. If tax revenue does not increase sufficiently, taxes will have to be raised or the money borrowed. Spending could be reduced, but that is the least likely option. What is certain is that the American public is going to pay for national health care one way or another. If we don't, our children will. The Chinese are not going to pay for it. They might loan us the money, but they are not going to pay for it.

The ardor with which the president and his supporters in Congress are pursuing national health care is alarming. It is almost as if they fear that if American people think too long about it, or examine it too closely, they will change their mind. But if the bills are sound, they should be able to withstand scrutiny and debate. Moreover, if there is a genuine demand for health care reform, as is being claimed by many in Washington, that demand will not ebb over several months, or even a year. The country has persevered for a long time without national health care, it should be able to last a few more months, even a year or two if that is what it takes to produce effective and desirable legislation. The zeal for its quick passage indicates an impatience out of place for so important an issue.

The ancient Pharaohs built magnificent pyramids as monuments to their greatness and to ensure they would not be forgotten. Over the years, many presidents have sought to create monuments of their own. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and FDR, have sought to create testimonies to themselves and enshrine their names in history. To simply execute the law and defend the Constitution is no longer enough to satisfy the ambitions of those who would be president. They must have a pyramid. Clinton failed in his effort to build a pyramid. Obama is determined to succeed with his. It is likely he will succeed if only because so many people want a new pyramid. And if one is to be built, many in Congress want their names inscribed on it.

I only hope national health care works as Obama says it will. I am starting to feel ill.

Health Care and Charity Redux

In this morning's Dallas Morning News it was reported that Catholic Charities, a national network of charities, stated that three quarters of its agencies nationwide are experiencing an increased demand for food while its budgets have had to be cut due to a decrease in donations. It was also reported that the Bridgespan Group, an advisor to charities, said that 80 to 100 percent of nonprofits responding to a recent survey have had to cut funding. While expenditures by many charities nationwide have had to be cut because of reduced donations during these hard financial times, demands upon these charities have increased: also due to these hard financial times. In Richmond, Virgina, the Central Virgina Food Bank reports demand is up 50 percent from last year. Additionally, it was reported that the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, meaning that the demand on charities is unlikely to decline anytime soon.

As Congress continues to debate the $850 billion health care bill, charities nationwide dedicated to the poor and the suffering face closing their doors or cutting services due to dwindling funding. Many of those charities provide free health care services to those unable to pay. While they often do not provide significant medical care, they play a crucial role in keeping health care costs down by treating ailments and illnesses that, if left unchecked, very well could lead to the need for hospitalization. As importantly, they reduce the need by the poor and uninsured to use emergency rooms for treatments easily taken care of in clinics and doctor's offices; a not insignificant health care cost. Many Americans are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills. The existence of health care charities and services goes a long way to help ensure that those that lose their struggle will at least have access to free health care. That is, unless national health care chokes them out.

The poor are rarely a segment of the electorate that politicians care about other than to pay lip service. The real prize is the middle class. Despite the rhetoric in Washington of helping the poor and the suffering, National Health Care is about helping the middle class. Many in the middle class might need help, especially those who have lost their jobs and face mounting bills. But it would seem that the best way to help those who have lost their jobs or are having difficulty paying their bills and feeding themselves and their families is not to give them free health care, but to help them get a job. The efficacy of the massive spending by the government to stimulate the economy is still a matter of debate.

Spending $1 trillion dollars on health care seems an unlikely way to go about stimulating the economy, unless one aspires to be in public service or is an out of work health care professional. If one is determined to spend a trillion dollars, they should give it back to the taxpayers. $1 trillion in the hands of consumers would go a long way towards fixing the economy. If it did not lead to everyone in the country getting a job or being able to afford health insurance, it at least might help to increase charitable donations. Better funded charities would alleviate a great deal of suffering and hunger. Moreover, charitable giving not only benefits those in need, but provides an intangible benefit by increasing good will among those who give, as well as those who receive.

Charitable groups can do what the government cannot: provide affordable, effective health care to those who need it. They also do what the government will not, provide service with a minimum of bureaucracy, regulation, and politics. Perhaps this is the real reason why Washington is so determined to pass national health care. If Americans are to receive a service they need and want, it is too often felt that the government should provide that service. If government provides that service, they will get the credit, and the control.

If national health care is passed, the government will gain control over a large and growing sector of our economy. Those who supported it will get the satisfaction of believing they have done something noble and selfless. Those that receive the gift of National Health Care will have the burden of relying upon it for their care. Every one else will just have to settle for paying for it.

In the face of suffering and misfortune, many feel that the least they can do is to support the government in its effort to address that suffering and misfortune. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to do the least they can do.

Voting Rights and Representaion

Attorneys in Irving, Texas are hard at work on a lawsuit against the school district there. They have filed suit against the city of Irving claiming that the city's at large election system violates the Voting Rights Act by denying Hispanics adequate representation. It is hoped that by creating single member districts, some with majority Hispanic populations, that not only would more Hispanics be encouraged to vote, (at least those who are eligible to vote), it would help towards getting more Hispanics elected and thereby boost their influence.

It is believed by some that Hispanics will only vote for Hispanic candidates. If this is true, it should be a cause for concern. Americans are frequently told that to prefer one person over another because of race or ethnicity, particularly if one's own race and ethnicity are the measure, is racist. Obama's election was heralded by many as America's (or at least a significant percentage of the America public) transcendence over race. The willingness of Americans to vote across the lines of religion, race, and ethnicity has long been a goal in this country. It used to be the case that the refusal of voters to cross those lines was common. Italians voted for Italian candidates, Irish for Irish candidates, and Catholics for Catholic candidates, etc. While this was once the norm it is no longer so. There are no doubt many who still vote that way, but they are few enough to be considered quaint or nostalgic. This is a tendency that for the most part is not missed.

After so much time and effort has been spent in this country to overcome racial and ethnic bias, why is it being encouraged, and even applauded in the case of Hispanics? Why is it when Hispanics vote for Hispanics because they are Hispanic, they are not censured or criticized as prejudiced?

Hispanics are a rapidly growing minority. There are many cities and regions that have majority Hispanic populations. If Hispanics are encouraged to vote for Hispanic candidates, and applauded when they do, what will it mean to the non-Hispanic residents of those cities and regions? Most likely, they will be told to accommodate themselves to the new reality of their situations. Perhaps in time, after the novelty of political power and representation wears off, Hispanics will no longer feel obliged to support Hispanic candidates. But this is only supposition.

Richard Engstrom, a professor at Duke University, blandly claims that "Latino voters show a clear preference for Latinos." This bias is reported as a simple matter of fact with no implication or inference of prejudice. Moreover, it is being proposed that this prejudice should be encouraged through creating majority Hispanic voting districts. By divvying up political representation according to race and ethnicity we are discouraging assimilation and integration: two ideas that have not always been viewed with disfavor.

If someday we wind up with two distinct communities across the Southwest, one English speaking, the other Spanish speaking, we will have taken a giant step backward from the goal of assimilation. Naturally, this is only a bad thing if assimilation is considered a desirable goal. For many it is not.

The Virtue of Compelling Virtue

There is a great deal of talk these days about the need for sacrifice. In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie chides us here in the U.S. for our unwillingness to sacrifice. He writes that "most of us are unwilling to make the changes necessary to resolve big problems." Climate change and health care top his list of those things people are unwilling to sacrifice for.

While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.

The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.

Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.

It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.

People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.

Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.

It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.

Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.

Educational Standards

There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by Faith Davis Johnson arguing the need for national education standards. In her editorial, Johnson takes issue with those resistant to national standards. Governor Perry of Texas was named in particular. Perry's comment that "the citizens of Texas, not the federal government, know what is best for our children" seemed to irritate Johnson in particular. She disagrees that the citizens of Texas know what is best for their children and seems to assert that only the federal government is in position to know what is best for our children. Presumably, among the citizens of Texas being discussed, are parents.

Davis buttresses her argument by citing statistics revealing how poorly U.S. students fair against foreign students in math and science. There are many provocative statistics available to demonstrate the poor performance of U.S. students when compared against students in other nations; Japan apparently being the measure of choice for many. The statistics are difficult to ignore. As is often the case, the blame for this is assigned not to teachers, parents, or students, but to curriculum. This is no doubt why discussion about education reform is almost always about curriculum, text books, and budgets. Many seem to assume education is a process not entirely unlike baking a cake. With the right ingredients and the right recipe, a quality product is assured.

But educating children is not like baking a cake. Children are different. Parents are different. Teachers are different; well, before the preoccupation with certification and method, they were different. Johnson argues that what is needed is a uniform curriculum, taught according to uniform standards, with uniform text books by uniform teachers.

Ignorance is not simply the results of poor teachers, curriculum, or text books. There is a human element involved as well. But the human element is the most difficult to address, particularly in a society prone to give short shrift to human nature. If people are simply products of a system, be it an educational system, an economic system, a social system, etc, then achieving desired results is simply a matter of adjusting the system. The easiest way to adjust a system is by manipulating it. One manipulates an educational system through standards, tests, incentives, and curriculum. To try and improve the system by addressing the aptitude and motivation of teachers and parents is near impossible; even if one was reckless enough to try.

I find it difficult to believe that either Davis or the governor knows what is best for children. Even less do I believe the federal government knows what is best for children. They might know the results they want, but they are manifestly incompetent to bring those results about. It is curious that when comparisons are made between education in the U.S. and education in other countries, those comparisons usually only focus such things as hours, money, and curriculum. Rarely, if ever, do they concern themselves with broader and softer factors such as parenting or motivation. It is easier, and more convenient to compare Japanese schools to American schools than to compare Japanese students, teachers, and parents to American. It is also less likely to offend.

Until we here in the U.S. are willing to take a tough look at our students, teachers, and parents, not just our curriculum, we will continue to be preoccupied with numbers and standards. And while we are so preoccupied, our educational system will continue to flounder. A better cake is about more than a better recipe. Sometimes better ingredients and a better baker are needed as well.

Peace Prize for Effort

President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday for his efforts in behalf of world peace. If they were alive today, no doubt Marshal Zhukov and General Patton would be nominated for the Peace Prize. Few men in history have worked as hard or as diligently for peace as Patton and Zhukov. In light of Obama's prize for his efforts in behalf of world peace, I believe Patton's and Zhukov's nomination would be justified. Unlike Obama, Patton and Zhukov were instrumental in actually ending a war. Obama is not even close to ending a war. But then again, Obama is much more popular and eloquent than Patton or Zhukov could ever have hoped to be.

Obama has not resolved a conflict or ended a war. Evidently, sometimes eloquently talking about peace is enough, even when one is fighting a war. Obama claimed he was humbled by the prize. Let us hope he is.

Tax Cuts: Tactic or Policy?

There were two articles in this morning's Dallas Morning News printed side by side. The first article concerned the announcement by the Texas Workforce Commission that most businesses in Texas will have to pay nearly triple the unemployment taxes they paid last year. It is said that, across the board, unemployment taxes next year will nearly double. More money is needed as the economic downturn continues. It seems the Workforce Commission believes that raising taxes on businesses is good way to assist the unemployed.

The other article concerned plans by the Obama administration to lower small business taxes as an incentive to encourage them to hire. It is hoped that those tax cuts will boost the job market. As a layman, I am often perplexed by the economic ramifications of manipulating the tax code. While there are many who understand much more about taxes and economics than people such as myself, these people only rarely agree with each other. What there does seem to be agreement on is that lower taxes encourage activity, and higher taxes discourage activity. So it appears that, in an odd turn of events, the lowering of taxes by Washington will offset the raising of taxes by Texas. Whether small businesses in Texas will come out ahead, remains to be seen.

President Obama, in announcing his plan, stated his goal is to stimulate the economy through lowering taxes. He also stated that he wants to work with Congress to develop "stimulus" programs to help those who are out of work. I wonder why Obama doesn't just pick one policy; either lower taxes or increased spending, and see if it works. If one doesn't work, one can always try the other. The inability to pick a plan and stick with it, rather than flail at a problem, seems to indicate indecision, if not frustration. Obama wants the recession to go away so he can get back to his plans to expand the federal government and cement it as the lodestar of political, economic, and social life. But he seems unable to decide the best way to do it. The frustration no doubt felt by the administration lay in their impatience at the slow pace at which the economy moves. An economy as large as the U.S.'s does not change direction quickly. Obama is no doubt aware of this. What he is seeking are the statistics needed to demonstrate that the economy is changing direction. Once people are persuaded that the economy is improving, he can refocus his energy on National Health Care and expanding government.

If and when the dust clears, and a national health care plan is passed, it is likely Obama and Congress will seek to recoup their losses by revisiting the tax cuts and incentives they were forced to concede. In Washington, tax cuts are more often a tactic than a strategy.

Economic Score Card

As the economy begins to recover, we are continually bombarded with numbers, figures, and statistics. Unemployment now stands at 17.2 percent. On the bright side, only 110,000 jobs were lost last month, better that the 130,00 that were expected to be lost. Not so good news is that the average length of unemployment has risen to more than 28 weeks. We are now in the 23rd straight month of job losses. Most of the statistics are grim.

To the guy who has been out of work for several months and is facing the loss of his home, does it matter that 20,000 fewer jobs were lost last month? Does it matter to those struggling to meet their bills without jobs that weekly earnings rose $4.08, or that the average workweek rose from 33 hours to 33.2? The dour statistics, such as the rise of joblessness in Texas from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent might help some to not take their circumstances so personally. But the bright statistics do little for the millions not included in them.

No doubt, improving statistics increases optimism. Some who are close to giving up might take encouragement in the numbers and renew their efforts to find a job. Those who are worried about losing their jobs might sleep a bit easier. But for all the solemnity and enthusiasm of economic reports, the parade of numbers seems more like a score card than a report card, and Obama is trying to win. When it comes down to it, the only economic numbers that matter are your own. Decimals do not provide much satisfaction.

State Control No Longer Out of Fashion

In 1927, Joseph Stalin, his power secure, began to concern himself in earnest with the state of the Soviet Union. The economy was in shambles. Production was dismal. People were starving. If the USSR was to survive, it needed to modernize and improve its economy. In response, Stalin introduced his first 5 Year Plan.

The first 5 Year Plan addressed the economy as a whole. Education, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, health, along with many others areas of the economy, were cited as in need of reform and progress. Committees were established and information was gathered and studied. Eventually, determinations were made and goals were set. In 1928, it was ordered that coal production be increased by 1,115%; iron production by 200%; electricity by 335%. Similar increases were demanded in food production, housing, and virtually every other area of the economy. It was determined that 250,000 tractors would have to be produced.

While few of the goals were achieved, there were significant increases in production: enough to convince the planners that they were on the right track. Millions starved and were imprisoned, but production increased. The "success" of the first 5 Year Plan led to more being created. Some were more successful than others. Later plans would concern themselves with particular areas of the economy that were identified as in need of government intervention: "stimulation" would be the polite word for it. In each case, needs were identified by the government and goals were set. Plans and policies were then made and implemented. Even though the Soviets were able to achieve much and made remarkable advancements in many fields, the economy stagnated. People suffered. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Today in Washington, the administration and Congress survey a nation that, while not in shambles, is in need of help. Experts are assembled. Examinations are made and needs identified. Information is gathered and studied. Determinations are made. Plans are formulated and policies implemented. Money and resources are allocated. It is not unlikely that there will be some success. Statistics will be provided on how productivity has improved in this or that area and how the life of citizens has improved according to this index or that. Credit will be claimed and honors bestowed. Policy will be vindicated. Rewards will be expected.

The U.S. today is manifestly different than the Soviet Union of the 1930's. Little, if any, of the backwardness and incompetence that plagued the Soviets is prevalent in the U.S. Our infrastructure is dramatically superior to what the Soviets had. Our workers are better trained, educated, and motivated that the Soviets' ever were. Our government is arguably much more enlightened. So, why are we taking lessons from the Soviets? Why are we obsessively collecting data and forever convening commissions and panels to study that data? Why are so many in Washington preoccupied with setting goals for our economy and identifying those areas most in need of "stimulation"? Why is the government so determined to manipulate the economy? Why is the government seeking to take control of the health care industry, of one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy?

It is one thing for IBM to study the market, gather information, and set goals. It is quite another for the government to do so. IBM has simple goals: its goal is to make a profit. The federal government has many goals, least of which is to make a profit.

As was the case in the Soviet Union, capitalists and capitalism are increasingly objects of suspicion and criticism. The desire to make a profit is a suspicious motive at best. Often, industries that seek to make a profit are criticized when their goals are perceived as incongruous with public goals; whatever those goals may be at the moment. Health insurance companies are today a fashionable target for those angry at the bourgeoisie. Their attempts to make a profit are cited as proof of their counterrevolutionary ideas. The state must intervene in health care, as it has in so many other areas, to defend the working class and the common man against the injustice and greed of capitalists. In the Soviet Union, the government claimed that its policies and programs were formulated and implemented in the name of the people: an argument that is increasingly familiar today.

Sadly, as was also the case in the Soviet Union, power claimed by the government is just that: power claimed by the government. Though it will be proclaimed that the power belongs to the people, it will be wielded by the government and the bureaucrats. It will belong to the people in name only. Centralized planning and state control are no longer out of fashion. In the Soviet Union, everything was political. Unfortunately, that too, is a concept no longer out of fashion.

Tough Slog on Healthcare

The Senate today is set to begin debate on health care reform (formerly referred to as national health care). A "tough slog" is expected. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced with firm resolve and sense of mission that "generation after generation has called upon us to fix this broken system." Read and others are determined to succeed where so many have failed. "We are now closer than ever to getting it done."

I have been around for some time and I do not recall the public clamoring for health care "reform" until relatively recently. There was a considerable amount of grumbling perhaps, but the clamoring only began when national health care was put on the table. That aside, continuing with the slight of hand that made the insurance industry the target of reform rather than the health care industry, Reid continued by adding that National Health Care would halt the reprehensible practice by health care insurance companies of providing coverage in a way that allows them to make a profit. In this regard, government provided health care has a distinct advantage. It does not have to make a profit. Indeed, it is prepared to lose billions; a luxury private insurance companies do not have.

There was also chagrin on the part of some like Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, at those who insist on debating "issues that aren't important to the workability of health reform." The impatience on the part of Ginsberg and other technocrats is presumably due to the insistence by some on limiting or banning abortion coverage, contraceptives, and other controversial issues. To some, the issue of National Health Care is a matter of policy and economics. These are the ones oblivious to the social and political consequences of attempting to provide universal coverage. To them, health care reform is merely a political contest over money and power.

But health care reform is not simply a political or economic contest: it is much more. Health care is an intimate and deeply personal issue to many Americans. An ill or injured sibling, parent, or child is not the same thing as needing to refinance a loan or falling behind on the mortgage. Needing surgery or treatment is not the same thing as needing a new car or a job. There are many, indeed too many, in this country that need help in obtaining and paying for health care. Something should be done. But nationalizing health care is not it. There are other ways, such as subsidizing coverage to enable health insurance providers to cover those who do not make them a profit. The government could take steps to assist the many private charities and foundations that already provide health care to those who need and cannot afford it. However assisting the private sector and charities to meet a need would deny many in Washington the victory, control, and credit they seek. In Washington, is not enough to help people in need. Glory must be had as well.

How Much More?

Democrats in Congress are pushing for more "stimulus" money to aid a still faltering economy. The $787 billion allocated earlier this year has failed to bring about the results hoped for by the administration and Congress. They hope to get a bill to Obama by January. In defense of the original stimulus package, some in Congress claim it was a success, though in a way "not as highly visible as a lot of people would like" said Rep. Betty Sutton D-Ohio. What's the point of success if it is unnoticed? Others, such as Rep. Barbara Boxer decried the hundreds of billions already spent as "playing around the edges" and urged more government "investment." Still other members of Congress were described as "disappointed" that more wasn't spent in the earlier package and urged "substantial" spending in a new bill. Evidently, $787 billion is not as much money as it used to be. This all seems to be just another way of saying that the original package did not achieve results that reflect positively enough on those who voted for it. One can only speculate how the economy would respond if that $787 billion was placed in the hands of consumers.

Because the original stimulus package was not nearly as effective as hoped, it is proposed that tens of billions of dollars more be spent. If spending $787 billion doesn't work, the obvious solution is to spend even more. According to the White House, they are willing to accept the massive debt that will result from all the spending if new jobs are created. If people get jobs they will stop fretting over the economy and the government can get back to passing national health care. The Democrats don't seem particularly interested in the misery that all this government spending will someday will bring. Why should they be? Chances are, if the economy collapses under massive government spending, people will turn to the party which most sympathizes with their plight and offers to alleviate their misery: and that party will be the Democratic Party.

There is growing concern by some in Washington that the public will begin to turn on them if there is not significant job growth. Obama and the Democrats in Congress seem willing to spend however much money they feel is necessary to, if not create jobs and stimulate the economy, at least convince the public that it will. If the economy rebounds and new jobs are created, it is hoped by many in Washington that the huge increase in government debt - projected to rise this year to $1.58 trillion - as well as the expansion of government, (a cost that will not go away when the economy recovers), will be forgotten or overlooked by a grateful public. It is even believed by some that when good times return, and after national health care is passed, the government will finally address the deficit.

If the economy improves, there is little chance that people will be disappointed with a larger government and greater debt. They will have jobs and they will be happy, oblivious, (at least for the time being), to greater government control of the economy and the crisis that is in store when the debt reaches critical mass. No doubt Obama is hoping that day will not come for at least another seven years. Woe to whoever is president when that day comes.

Tax Reform Minutiae

Lost in the Health Care Debate and budget proposals in Washington are the minutiae of the tax proposals in Congress. In the various tax bills under discussion in Washington are issues such as the proposal to raise gasoline taxes to 40 cents a gallon. Also under discussion is a proposal to triple excise taxes on gun ammunition, and raise the beer tax; two items unlikely to affect liberals. There are proposals to increase enforcement of the tax code through more "aggressive activity" on the part of the IRS. Limiting charitable deductions is another policy under review. The list is a long and indeed tedious one. While most of the tax proposals and adjustments are not very remarkable in themselves, the cumulative effect on the economy will be felt. Taxes, no matter how obscure, always affect someone.

Interestingly, in Texas the Plano city council is discussing a proposal to grant tax breaks to Pizza Hut of America Inc. to encourage its relocation to their city in order to spur economic activity. Does Plano know something the federal government doesn't? Unlikely. It has long been conventional wisdom that decreasing taxes encourages economic activity and promotes desired behavior while increasing taxes discourages them. That is why the government is forever manipulating the tax code. They know that raising taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, or anything else, discourages use and consumption, while giving tax breaks and subsidies encourages it.

The debate over income tax is a little trickier. People will try to earn a living whatever the tax rates. Taxing income does little to discourage work. What it does do is create an industry devoted to helping people avoid paying taxes and encourages tax fraud.

In regard to the tobacco industry, if the government is ever able to tax it out of existence, how do they plan on replacing the lost revenue? No doubt they will have to raise taxes on something else.

Collin County, TX

A man died Wednesday afternoon after he was hit in the face and stabbed in the chest with a tire iron on a basketball court in Collin County, TX. Two men were arrested and charged with the murder. Police said that two men, who wanted to use the court to play basketball, "quarreled" with Agha Faran Khan, who was practicing cricket on the court at the time. According to police, it was "just a fight that got out of control. Some young men couldn't control themselves." Oh well. Just another day in Collin County I suppose.

Expensive Jobs

White House officials proudly reported this morning that over 640,000 jobs have so far been created under the $787 billion Federal Stimulus Package. "There is no doubt jobs are being created and saved" said Earl Devaneey, chairman of the Recovery Board. (I imagine Obama's is one of the jobs hoping to be saved.) Some dispute those numbers saying the number of jobs created is less than the administration claims. But let us for a moment take the administration at its word. That comes out to well over $1,000,000 a job. Many of the jobs created are temporary; their existence is predicated on continued federal funding if they are to continue past the "recovery." I assume that the federal government is counting on the taxes collected from these new jobs to help staunch the bleeding at the treasury. Even still, the net loss to the government is staggering, especially given the nature of many of the jobs created. The administration can say what it will about the recovery it is seeking credit for. But $1,000,000 a job, to my mind, is not a bargain. Nor is it something to brag about.

With economic recovery well under way, the administration can now focus on its health care goals. I am surprised the administration has not concluded that the best way to provide national health care and aid the economy would simply be for the federal government to hire every one in the country without a job or health insurance. That would be the surest way to provide health care to all as well as dramatically reduce unemployment. Money certainly doesn't seem to be an object.

The Problem of Settlements

It was reported this morning That Israel has rebuffed President Obama's criticism of its plan to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians, naturally, are upset at Israeli expansion into territory they consider to be theirs. Danny Danon, of the Likud Party, scolded Obama, declaring that Obama "should not interfere with the rights of Jewish people to live in Jerusalem." The issue, however, is not so much the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem, but the right of Palestinians to live in Jerusalem. The expansion of Jewish housing and settlements is a critical issue. Every Jewish settlement is one more place where Palestinians cannot live, or sometimes even travel through.

Of course, it needn't be this way. The government could build houses and apartments, and provide schools, jobs, and services for all the residents of West Bank, Jewish and Palestinian. But this is unlikely. The first reason is Palestinian hostility toward Jews and Israel. They don't want Jews encroaching on Palestinian towns and cities or taking what they believe to be their land. It is natural that every new Jewish house, apartment, and school would be contested by the Palestinians.

The second reason is Israeli intolerance. Every new settlement built by Israel is a Jewish settlement. Every piece of land seized by Israel becomes Jewish land. Palestinians cannot live in Jewish settlements, nor can they build on Jewish land. Often, they cannot even travel through Jewish territory. The result is everything in Israel is either Jewish, or Palestinian. Everything taken by Israel is taken from Palestine. Everything taken by Palestine is taken from Israel. Little, if anything, is shared. Indeed, one reason for the grudging acquiescence to Palestinian territories was to enable Israel to rid itself of them.

Many seemingly intractable contests over land between peoples have been resolved. Often, the resolution of the conflict was identified by finding a way for the contesting people to share the land and resolve their disputes politically by sharing power. Sharing the land in Israel is evidently not an option. Neither is sharing power. The possibility of an equitable division of the land between Israelis and Palestinians is remote, particularly given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. Continued Israeli expansion increasingly leaves Palestinians with two options: submission or violence. As futile and suicidal as Palestinian violence may be, the day might come again when it is seen by many as preferable to submission.

Red Cross Treasures

It was reported this morning that the Red Cross, facing a large deficit, is going to auction off decades worth of it's treasures. A considerable number of the more than 135,000 objects and books it has collected over the years will be sold on the block.

It is unfortunate that while Congress is debating a health care bill that will cost billions, an agency such as the Red Cross, a group with a well established track record of aiding the poor, the ill, and the suffering, is struggling to keep itself afloat. There are many groups with long and proven histories of providing health care and aid to the ill, the suffering, and the poor. Moreover, these groups get more out of every dollar than the federal government could ever hope to. So why are they being ignored and forgotten amidst the clamor for national health care reform?

No doubt, some of these private charities have religious affiliations which renders them anathema to public funding. The aid and care these organizations provide matters not. Their religious affiliation excludes them from federal funding. Perhaps it is believed that their religious affiliation taints their care. Perhaps it is feared that the charity and aid these organizations provide is simply a form of propaganda used to gain converts to their beliefs. Whatever the motives, it is believed by many that any public funding of the care provided by private and religious charities is not worth the protests, animosity, and lawsuits of the professionally aggrieved who quarrel over religion and "values" to the point of obsession.

But what of the many private, secular, and charitable organizations? What of the March of Dimes? What of the Shriners? What of all the other private organizations and charities that exist to help the poor, the suffering, and the ill? In many cases, they too, like religious organizations, are cable of providing more with less than any governmental service or bureaucracy can ever hope to provide. Why are these organizations being overlooked and neglected? Imagine what the Shriners could do with a a few million dollars; or Habitat for Humanity. Weigh this against the hundreds of millions being proposed in Washington for a national health care plan.

Most likely, private organizations and charities are shunned because they are unsuitable vehicles for government policy. Private groups have their own charters, procedures, and guiding principals. Where these groups refuse to reorganize or accommodate themselves to the political sensitivities of government, they are avoided. Lip service may often be provided for the admirable services offered by such groups, but funding is denied. If only a fraction of the funding proposed for national health care was redirected to private organizations that have proven themselves able and willing to tend to the public, much of the health care "crisis" that exists in this country would be alleviated.

The crux of the matter is the government never gives anything away. Federal money brings with it strings. Those strings are pulled by bureaucrats and politicians. Groups that would not allow themselves to be regulated or manipulated by government are of little benefit to politicians and interest groups beyond photo opportunities and press releases. Perhaps more importantly, many private groups and charities are largely beyond the reach of those who want to control and manipulate society to serve their own ends and ideals. And so, while the Red Cross has to auction some of its most treasured possessions to stay afloat, billions of dollars are on the table in Washington. But then again, national health care is not simply about aiding the poor, the suffering and the ill. It is also about helping politicians, special interests, and the middle class.

Clinton and Democracy in Afghanistan

It was reported this morning that Secretary of State Clinton declared that the U.S. will not provide any more civilian aid unless the Afghan government takes steps to curb the rampant corruption that the government has exhibited. "We are going to expect more from the Afghan government...we've got some very specific asks (sic) that we will be making." It was also reported that Obama is expected to "announce" a troop increase later in the week.

It is of note that Clinton "declared", and Obama "announced." It is also of note that the U.S. aid Clinton threatened to withhold was civilian aid. Military aid is not in jeopardy. Clinton stated that U.S. aid was contingent on the Afghan government having ministries that the U.S. can hold accountable. Evidently the Afghan government, in addition to being accountable to the people of Afghanistan, must be accountable to the U.S. as well.

Part of the problem in Afghanistan is that the U.S. in not simply insisting upon an accountable and responsible government for the sake of the Afghan people, but for U.S. interests as well. Moreover, the only form of government that can be accountable and responsible, by U.S. standards, is democratic government. For a country which has never known democratic government, and lacks the social and political infrastructure for it's existence, it hardly seems reasonable to expect democracy to take root in the matter of a few years. Democracy is a little more complicated than passing laws and erecting voting booths. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. A democratic people create a democratic government. If the U.S. goal in Afghanistan is to create a democratic people, we had better be prepared for a very long occupation.

A Question of Arson

Controversy in Texas is growing over the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire in 1991 that resulted in the death of his three daughters. Since Willingham's execution in 2004 questions have arisen over the methods used to determine the cause of the fire. The methods used to determine the source of the fire in Willingham's conviction have been discredited in the eyes of many arson investigators. Despite the growing controversy, Governor Perry is standing by the conviction and the methods used to secure it.

It was reported that Perry and unnamed others dismiss the controversy by asserting that, even if the methods used to determine the source of the fire were flawed, "there was ample other evidence of Willingham's guilt." Since Willingham is dead, even with the new evidence, or lack thereof, it is unlikely he will appeal his conviction.

Health Care Hurdle

A major obstacle is developing in the debate over health care in Congress. That obstacle is the issue of abortion. Opponents of abortion are pushing hard to exclude it from coverage under any national health care plan. Abortion proponents are pushing for its inclusion. Obama has taken steps to keep himself above the struggle by stating that, while he is not "trying to sneak in funding for abortion," neither is he trying to restrict insurance "choices" available to women. There are several bills being proposed that seek to untangle abortion coverage from the national health insurance plans under discussion.

At the core of this struggle, as with so many others, is the issue of federal money. Government comes with government money. Politics come with government. If federal money is going to be used in any health insurance reform, then politics will be unavoidable. Neither the government, nor the people, are going to be satisfied by simply creating a national health care plan. They are going to demand influence, if not control over its coverage and policies. There are many interested parties in the health care debate. Some have financial interests, some have political interests, some have medical interests, and some have personal interests. These different interests, and the conflicts they engender, are inherent in any plan proposed by government. More importantly, these are issues that are never "solved" because they are always in motion. Even if Congress somehow manages to assemble and pass a bill that can appease and satisfy enough people, and thereby garner their support, any consensus reached will not be permanent because interests and issues change. Sex change operations, euthanasia, and cosmetic surgery all loom on the horizon. Each new issue will generate new conflict and require a new consensus.

It is assumed (or perhaps just hoped), that in time, national health care, if passed, will simply blend into the economic and social landscape and thereby become part of our political furniture. Controversies will fade, as will the hard feelings that preceded and followed its passage. But there is little chance this hope will be realized for two reasons. The first is, health care is a much more emotional and personal issue that affects far more people more deeply than other government programs such as food stamps or social security ever will. Unlike most federal programs, national health care will be an issue that will affect all Americans throughout their lives. Countless accidents, illnesses, and mishaps, bring nearly every American into contact with the health care industry at one point or another. The convenience, cost, and quality of that care will be the critical measures of public satisfaction with it. And, so far, we have only the administration and its supporters' word that we will be satisfied.

Secondly, health care is a dynamic industry. New medicines, techniques, procedures, and tests, are constantly being developed and improved. The medical and pharmacology industries move at a much quicker pace than the government could ever hope to. Bureaucrats have never been able to keep pace with society. They are even more outmatched by science and technology. The inertia and inefficiency of government will ensure the gap between technology and policy is never closed.

The current controversy over abortion is but one example of the political consequences that can be expected under any federal health care plan. But there are other issues as well. Many issues actually.

Health Care Morass

An issue recently brought before a city-sponsored diversity task force in Fort Worth, Texas was whether health care insurance provided by the city to its employees should include coverage for sex-change operations. The city of Fort Worth is currently under siege by gay rights advocates and others for a controversial raid made by police on a gay bar. That raid was later deemed improper. An internal investigation of the raid is currently underway. According to the article printed in this morning's Dallas Morning News, the issue of extending insurance provided to city employees to cover sex changes put forward by a diversity task force was "greeted warmly" by the city.

The issue at hand is one that bodes ominous for national health care. The line between necessary health care and procedures, and desired health care and procedures, is one that should be crossed with great apprehension, if at all. There are a wide vary of procedures available to those unhappy with their appearance and condition. Breast lifts, tummy tucks, face lifts, hair implants, nose jobs, and numerous other procedures are available to those dissatisfied with themselves and their appearance. Increasingly, such procedures are not viewed as motivated by vanity, but rather necessary to self esteem, and, by extension, psychological well being. Yet, despite the angst and psychological discomfort such conditions may cause, they are very rarely medical conditions that pose a threat to health or require medical treatment. As far as I know, no one has ever died, or needed to be hospitalized, because they were unable to afford getting a sex change operation, let alone a face lift.

For some time, medicine has striven to keep up with the demands made by those with low self-esteem, anomie, and out sized egos. The demand for the psychological comfort and ease that medical and cosmetic alterations and improvements can provide is unlikely to wane in the future. Apart from the costs to any public health care plan that such procedures pose, there is also the matter of using taxpayer money to assuage and accommodate the egos and insecurities of the vain and self conscious through funding those procedures. I suspect many taxpayers would be uncomfortable with the idea that their money was being used to fund sex change operations. But then again, few seem very interested in what taxpayers think anymore.

Feeling that one is somehow living in the wrong body and that they have the wrong genitalia is not a medical condition. It is a psychological condition.

Tipping Teachers

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, it was reported that the $300 million spent to encourage teachers here in Texas, and thereby improve student achievement, hasn't worked out. Despite the money, student academic performance has not improved. Some attribute this to the fact that the bonuses offered were not enough. Others asserted the poor results were due to the fact the money was spread to thin and resulted in incentives too small to motivate teachers. In essence, teachers were not offered enough money to motivate them to do what they are already being paid to do.

In some professions it is customary to offer bonuses to improve service. One tips a waiter, a doorman, or a parking valet to encourage them to do their job with more enthusiasm. One does not offer bonuses to policemen or fireman for doing thier job well because they are expected to do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability. One does one expect a policemen, a fireman to do their job poorly because they feel they are not being paid enough. If one is robbed, or one's house burns down, for the police or the fire department to claim that it was the result of poor pay and lack of motivation would not be accepted as an excuse.

To blame the unfortunate state of public education in the United States on poor teacher pay is also unacceptable. Teachers choose their profession. They know what they can expect to be paid. To take the job and then blame their lack of enthusiasm and effectiveness on a lack of financial incentive is a cynical attempt by the teachers unions to shift attention from the sad state of education in the U.S. today. It also creates a mercenary aspect to a profession that has traditionally prided itself as a calling.

The mechanical pedagogy and standardized curriculum increasingly prevalent in public schools today is a practice almost guaranteed to produce little enthusiasm on the part of students and teachers and so produce poor results. To treat education as simply a body of facts and set skills to be transmitted by people whose credentials are based more on methodology than knowledge, is to stultify education. Education is an activity that should be participated in by both the teacher and the student. It is not an object to be given and received.

Treating education as a body of facts to be learned according to a standardized method has the appeal of objectifying education and making it more amenable to measure and manipulation; both of which in turn have an appeal to a nation preoccupied with statistics and standards. They also have an appeal to a profession increasingly sensitive to criticism, for it allows blame to be shifted from how well they perform their jobs, to the standards and conditions they are "forced" to practice under.

Many private schools operate with teachers paid far less than public school teachers and a fraction of the resources available to public schools. That private schools are able to select their students is little excuse. Many public schools perform well. Not all public schools are struggling with low achievement. For those schools that are struggling with low achievement, to blame low pay and lack of incentive is more a reflection on the teachers in those schools than the teacher's unions might care to admit.

There are many reasons behind the poor performance of students in schools these days. Teacher motivation is but one. Even if the desired effect of motivating teachers through paying incentives is achieved, it is unlikely it will do anything to motivate students or parents. Very few of the problems faced by schools can be redressed by simply paying teachers more.

Of Guilt and Execution

There has been no small amount of controversy here in Texas regarding our system of justice. The recent execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, whose guilt has come into question, has added to this controversy. Over the years, the release of prisoners, some of whom where on death row, whose verdicts were overturned or found not guilty after review, has become disturbingly common. Many are rightfully upset and demand changes in the legal system to ensure that only the guilty be convicted and punished. This is a special concern in states like Texas that have the death penalty. As bad as it is to convict and imprison an innocent man, it is many times worse to execute an innocent man.

The matter of determining guilt has a long, sometimes amusing, but more often disturbing history. Very few in history have been indifferent to the prospect of punishing or condemning an innocent man. Virtually every society has had some system for determining innocence and guilt. Here in the West, Trial by Ordeal was once popular. If someone was suspected of committing a grievous crime, they were threatened with a terrible peril, such as being burned alive or crushed with a stone. The theory behind this was that God would never allow the innocent to suffer and so would intervene if the accused was innocent. Indeed, the more gruesome the ordeal, the greater the opportunity for God to demonstrate His mercy and judgement. The often horrible death of the accused was taken as proof of their guilt. One of my favorites was a method adopted to sort out cases of suspected witchcraft. In these cases, a method was adopted where the accused woman would have a stone attached to her whereupon she would be dropped into a lake. The theory in this case was that, since witches were believed to float, those who somehow floated back to the top would be condemned of being witches. Those who drowned, or nearly drowned, were absolved. The confidence of the people in the efficacy of these methods allowed them to sleep peacefully, even after the most terrible of ordeals.

One system in particular that grew in favor was trial by combat. Here, the questions of right and wrong, truth and lie were to be settled in a feat of arms. Under this approach it was believed that right (good), would always triumph in a contest with wrong (evil). In cases where the combatants were manifestly unequal, such as if a woman or an elderly man was party to the dispute, a champion would be allowed to fight in their stead. In time, the use of champions grew in popularity to the point where few, if any, would fight in their own behalf. A lucrative trade developed for skilled men of arms to hire themselves out to settle disputes. These champions had little interest in the dispute they were hired to settle. There job was to win. It goes without saying that such a system was not a very reliable way of determining guilt and innocence. Nevertheless, it is this fine tradition that led in part to our modern adversary system. The men at arms who championed the claims of those seeking justice would eventually be replaced by lawyers. Swords and maces would be replaced by writs and motions. Nevertheless, the adversarial nature of the system, and the confidence that in a contest, right will prevail over wrong, and that truth will triumph over error, would endure.

The problem (and benefit) at the core of our legal system is its adversarial nature. The lawyer's job, like the champion of old, is to win. It is the prosecutor's job to convict and it the defense attorney's job to acquit. This system encourages zealousness on behalf of the prosecution and the defense, the result of which is that truth becomes only one factor to be considered among several. As Judge Jerome Frank once wrote,"the lawyer aims at victory, at winning the fight, not aiding the court to discover the facts." Like in the contests between champions of old, it is believed that amidst the struggle, the invisible hand of justice will prevail.

In regard to the state, prosecutors receive evidence from police and investigators, and when they believe that evidence has merits, they prosecute. It is part of their job assess the evidence they receive to determine its truthfulness and significance, but it is not the only part. Their primary job is that the suspect, once accused, is found guilty. It is the instances where prosecutors become so focused on proving the person they are prosecuting is guilty, rather than objectively assessing and weighing the evidence, that the most egregious errors occur.

A prosecutor's zeal for a conviction, and, or the ineptitude or indifference of a defence council, has on occasion lead to the conviction of an innocent man. The fact that the measure of good prosecutors is their conviction rate does little to temper their zeal. Defense attorneys, in their turn, are measured by their acquittal rate. No one is measured according to how many actually guilty people are convicted and how many actually innocent people are acquitted. There may be no way to know. The jury is there to decide whether the prosecution has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt and so decide whether the accused has been proved "guilty" or "not guilty." Innocence is a subject beyond their purview.

Perhaps in the future technology and forensics may advance to the point where guilt or innocence will be a simple matter of lab results. Yet, even in that case, trials would still be necessary to verify that the methods were used properly and applied appropriately. We have come a long way since sword fights, crushing people, and throwing them into lakes, but we are still well short of certainty. Until technology is able to advance to the point where its results are irrefutable, and, more importantly, its use, application, and interpretation are indisputable, doubt will, and should remain. And where there is doubt, there should be no death penalty.

In cases where evidence and procedure are questioned, or new facts brought to light, we should not hesitate to review them when a man's life is at stake. Legal systems have always been flawed and always will be flawed. This is why we should stop executing people, especially where there is any controversy whatsoever, legal or otherwise, surrounding the conviction. The execution of Cameron Todd Willingham may be a case where a guilty man was executed for his horrible crimes. But, due to the inherent flaws in our legal system, we cannot be assured that an innocent man might not be executed in the future. It is because of this possibility that we should cease executing people. If it has not already happened, it will happen that, someday, an innocent man will be executed. And because he will be executed in our name, that blood will be on all of our hands. We should not sleep peacefully, as our forbears did, so long as this is a possibility.

Health Care Behemoth

There was a report in the morning's Dallas Morning News about the health care bills winding their way through Congress. The bills are all mind numbing in their complexity. More significant is the wording in the various bills. The proposals being put forward all contain the words "must", "have to", and "required to." As much as the bills proposed are portrayed as simply seeking to provide health care to people who need it, they increasingly represent an attempt to coerce health care agencies, insurance companies, and business into meeting the political goals of Washington. Washington has decided it wants to provide health care to all. It cannot fulfill its promise because it cannot afford to do so. Congress therefore is seeking instead to coerce the insurance companies, the health care industry, and the private sector, into making good on its promise.

Employers with payrolls over $500,000 would be compelled to provide insurance to their employees. Larger companies likely will raise prices in order to offset the cost. For those unable to raise their prices, the costs will have to be absorbed. If it is not possible to absorb the costs, then they will have to be reduced in other ways, such as trimming the payroll or outsourcing jobs. There is no free lunch.

The "rich", those making over $500,000 a year, will have their income taxes raised. This is always a popular proposal with the "middle class." But it should be remembered that when the federal income tax was first enacted, it too was limited to the "rich." Now, all but the very poor pay it. A maze of federal regulations is being discussed on how to manipulate the tax code to assist the middle class in meeting the obligations that will be imposed upon them. The problem here is that the tax code can always be manipulated. In the future, as the cost of health care rises, and it will, there will be pressure to raise and expand those taxes. It is inevitable that the health care taxes imposed on the "rich" will someday be extended to the middle class.

With a health care system run by the secretary of health and human services, it is also inevitable that politics will be injected into health care. No good can come of that. Treatments and procedures would all acquire a political significance. Abortion, while the most salient, would not be the only one. Different lobbying and special interest groups would all demand a say in coverage, treatment, and the allocation of federal funds.

If it could be guaranteed that federal involvement in health care would be limited to underwriting health care, the prospect of its involvement would be less menacing. Such a guarantee is impossible. Even if the government today promises to stay out of the managing of health care, it cannot be guaranteed that this will not change in the future.

Where government money goes, government follows. Where government goes, politics follow. It is a law of nature. No politician can argue otherwise. No person should believe otherwise.

Dallas is Watching You

The city of Dallas recently announced the instillation of cameras along a busy street in a popular part of the city. The cameras were heralded as "an added measure measure of security to residents and workers." A system of 11 cameras will monitor the area. Unlike many surveillance cameras, these cameras will be actively monitored by the Dallas Police Department. Naturally, police welcomed the new system, as did residents and merchants. There is not a crime problem in the area. The monitoring devices are simply intended to keep it that way.

It is not surprising that law enforcement welcomes any new device or technology that aids them in deterring crime and apprehending those who violate the law. After all, that is their job. Nor is it surprising that many seem willing to sacrifice their privacy for the peace of mind such monitoring offers to provide. There has been a growing, and for many, welcome trend in this direction for some time. As law enforcement technology improves, there is a demand to use that technology, not simply to apprehend criminals, but to deter them. The problem, as I see it, is that every one within the range of such surveillance is monitored. The innocent are watched as well as the suspicious. Because cameras cannot distinguish between the two, everyone is treated as a suspect and potential criminal. Being watched doesn't seem to bother people as much as it once did, but it should.

Technology is neutral. It can be employed by those with sinister intent as easily as by those with benign intent. There is no way of knowing what will be considered worthy of surveillance in the future. Nor is there anyway of knowing what technology will be available, what use will be made of that technology, or who will be using it. The prospect of a near omniscient state is not as far fetched as it once was. Some might shrug off such concerns by believing the people, the government, and the courts would prevent any such scenario from developing. Given the welcome such technology frequently receives from the public, clearly they cannot be relied upon as an effective deterrent. The enthusiasm displayed by government to employ surveillance technology is evidence that they are an unreliable defense of privacy and liberty. The security claimed needed by the state makes law less of an obstacle than it might have been in the past, particularly when laws can be changed. The courts have proved increasingly willing to acquiesce to the needs claimed necessary by the government to protect the people and the nation.

The question I have, and many should have, is what guarantee do we have that the monitoring technology we have, and will have in the future, will not be extended to ever larger segments of society and to ever more crimes deemed worthy of prevention through surveillance? If such technology proves effective in reducing crime in one neighborhood, why not use it to deter crime in the city at large? And if it is effective for a city, why not the country? A camera on every street and inside every building would go a long way towards reducing crime in this country; or a least towards identifying and apprehending suspects.

Threats come and go. They always have. Liberties and rights, once lost, tend to stay lost.