Tolerance and Dignity?

A protest erupted in Israel when Muslim gravestones at the Ma'Man Cemetery in Jerusalem were knocked over in order to make way for Israeli expansion. Muslims were outraged. Despite the fact that the cemetery dates back centuries (some claim it dates to the 6th century), Israel claimed that the headstones were a ruse and recently placed to thwart Israeli expansion. Muslims contend that, while many of the headstones were newly placed, they were replacements installed in a recent effort to renovate the cemetery. Stephan Muller, the spokesman for the Jerusalem Municipality, derided the protest, claiming it was a "despicable, and frankly sad publicity stunt in an attempt to block Israeli expansion." Some Muslims claim the the matter of the headstones is irrelevant. They assert that even if the headstones were newly placed and no burials have taken place in a long time, if Muslims had ever been buried there, the ground is sacred. The dispute is likely to be settled with soldiers and bulldozers rather than historians and archaeologists.

Ironically, the building proposed for the site is the Center for Human Dignity-Museum of Tolerance. If Israel winds up unable to build the museum on that site, they should find another place for it. Such a museum is sorely needed in Jerusalem.

Where are the Jobs?

Yale economist Robert Schiller is not very optimistic about the economy. "There is a significant likelihood of (a second) recession if the government doesn't do something" he was quoted as saying in a report by Moneynews.com. Many point to the dismal job statistics as a key factor behind the poor economy. Despite the massive spending by Congress, jobs are still hard to come by these days. "Job growth in the private sector hasn't improved as we would have expected" said the chief economist at Wells Fargo, John Silvia.

Despite the nearly $1 trillion spent, unemployment is at 9.5%. Economic growth for the second quarter was 2.4%, down from the unimpressive 3.7% registered in the first quarter. Schiller recommends more spending by the government. If $1 trillion can't stimulate the economy, let's spend two.

The government should do something. It should get out of the way. Massive spending and increased regulation have not helped. Some argue it has only made things worse. Government does not generate wealth, it spends it. As a rule, government programs cost more to maintain than they produce and government employees cost more in tax revenue than they generate. Even if we put aside the issues of efficiency and effectiveness, government is expensive, very expensive.

Reducing taxes leaves more money in the economy which is precisely where it needs to be if the economy is to improve. If businesses are to hire people, they need to sell things. If people are to buy things, they need money. If people are to have money, they need jobs. Taking money out of that cycle through higher taxes does nothing to improve it. Neither does hobbling it through regulation. Injecting more money into that cycle by lowering taxes has a much higher probability of improving it. Government money can help in the short term by keeping the cycle from freezing up but it is not a solution. Persistent government spending only deforms the cycle. The only real solution is to restore the cycle to its natural state.

It was once said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Government spending and expansion have not helped. Why it is believed that more spending and more regulation will work is beyond me, but, then again, I am not economist at Yale. If we are to rely on the government to get us out of this recession, I suggest that the government simply hire everyone who is out of work. If the government did so, not only would it take a huge bite out of unemployment and provide quality health care to many, it would simultaneously stimulate the economy when those new workers went out to buy things. Perhaps best of all, tax revenue would increase since all of those new employees would pay taxes on their income. Sure, the debt would increase, but so what? It is not likely anyone will ever get elected on a platform of cutting the debt, not when you can get elected for generating jobs.

If the government is going to spend a couple of trillion dollars to improve the economy, it should just cut out the middleman and put that money in the hands of the people on whom the economy relies. But it won't because the government is the middle man.

Money not collected by the government remains in the hands of those who earned it where it is either saved, spent, or invested. Each benefits the economy. A healthy economy generates jobs.

Taking the Measure of Government

In one of many editorials and speeches written and made across the nation on the subject, columnist Paul Krugman this morning took issue with those who would limit or curtail government's authority. He is critical of those who rail against government as wasteful and pernicious. Krugman makes the argument that government is useful and necessary if we are to live in a stable, sanitary, and modern society safe in our person and homes from criminals and enemies and protected from the buffeting winds of fortune and circumstance. No one is seriously saying that the government should not pave roads, arrest criminals, regulate banks, or defend the nation. There are many things the government is needed for. The question is what things? Should the government pay for abortions? Health care? Should the government provide subsidies and, if so, how much, to whom, and for what purpose? Those and similar questions are the ones that people are posing.

The federal government exists to do those things people and states cannot do for themselves, even if it does many of those things inefficiently and clumsily. It also does things that the people and states can do for themselves but only with difficulty. For example most people and communities are quite capable of tending to each other. For many reasons, they prefer the government to take care of those things.

Often it is easier for people to let the government take care of things they feel should be taken care of. It is more convenient to let the government look after your neighbor or the homeless guy on the corner than to do it yourself. That is just fine with government. Government is populated with people who like to take care of things. Every one wins: except when those things are done poorly or at an exorbitant cost. By the time that is realized, it is too late. If you pay a contractor to remodel your kitchen and he does a poor job and insists he needs more time and money to complete what he said he could do, chances are you would fire him. If the job was done poorly enough, you might even seek getting your money back. Unfortunately, you cannot fire the government if it does a poor job, nor is there any hope of getting your money back.

The government continually assures us it knows what it is doing and that we can rely upon it to do those things it said it can do for us competently. This would not be a major source of dissatisfaction if it did those things we wanted it to do and did them well. But it doesn't. It often does things many Americans don't want it to do and when it does them, it frequently does them poorly. Yet, every time the government fails, we are told that only the government can fix what the government did poorly and we should trust them to get it right the next time, and the time after that. They will do it as often as necessary to get it right, even if it takes forever. The problem may be real and require repair but the solution eludes the government. Usually, the government claims it can solve the problem if it is given more authority, as if the solution to faulty government is more government.

Some people want the government to take care of things because they are unable or unwilling to take care of things. Others want government to take care of things because they want to take care of things. They feel that what the government controls they control. Sometimes they are right. They are the most frustrating. When people in Virginia or an editorialist in New York become upset over how Texas manages its public school system, there is nothing they can do about it. But there is something the federal government can do about it. The result is that the people of Virginia and the editorialist will insist that the federal government step in and take care of it. If and when the problem is solved to their satisfaction, they will applaud themselves and find some new issue beyond their reach for the government to resolve. If, for some reason, the federal government is restrained from acting, they will argue that the government should be allowed to act, indeed, is obligated to act. If the federal government lacks the authority to intervene, it will be demanded that it be given that authority so as to enable it to do what it is felt should be done.

There are people who become indignant when they find the government lacks the authority to do what they want done. Limits on the government are perceived as limits on the people: specifically people like them. This is a dangerous error. It is dangerous because the line between what people want and what people need is a fuzzy and shifting one. Editorialists in New York and lobbyists in Washington might want Texas or Virginia to act in ways that suit their sensibilities, but that does not mean that Texas or Virginia are in any way obligated to act. When reformers and crusaders are thwarted in their ambitions and desires, they turn to the federal government and demand it affect the changes they seek.

Paul Krugman believes that many states and localities are acting recklessly by attacking "big" government. He believes that Washington needs the power to do what needs to be done. That is fine as far as it goes. People are entitled to believe what they want. Moreover, Krugman has the good fortune to have a job where he can persuade people as to the merits of his opinions. Most people do not have that good fortune. It is those people who, in their frustration at what others are doing, seek the government to compel others to change their ways. It is the people who live in California and New York and are frustrated at how Texas manages its affairs and powerless to do anything about it that urge the federal government to step in.

The public ire on display at rallies across the nation is not a campaign against government. It is a campaign against big government. That is a distinction that must be preserved. Some of what the government does is necessary and beneficial. Some of what it does is pernicious and wasteful. To simply argue that government is good or bad gets us nowhere. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, at its core the debate over "big" government is not one about government. The argument is about what the proper scope of government should be and what it should be allowed to do. That is an argument well worth having and one that should be settled at the ballot box. The only obstacle is whether the Supreme Court will continue to allow room for public debate on issues and not step in to resolve political disagreements by fiat. But that is a whole different subject.

Creating the Society We Want

In todays's Dallas Morning New's, John Ellis Price takes the U.S. education establishment to task for failing to meet the needs of students, and by extension the nation. If students do not go to college, they will not get good paying jobs. Neither will they gain the technical or scientific expertise the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority over the world. Just as bad, lower income means less revenue. Progress requires money. Price laments that the U.S. does not have a "college-going culture." The solution as he sees it is to create one.

How does one go about creating a "college going culture"? How does one go about creating any kind of culture? The solution as Price and many other progressives see it is to create one through coercion and bribery: two methods that have served them well over the years. You provide tax breaks to encourage desired behavior and penalties to discourage undesired behavior. If the right balance is struck, the desired outcome is almost guaranteed. For Price, the desired outcome is a "college going culture."

To this end, Price proposes a series of plans and methods such as praising college attendance and demanding high performance. It is assumed that by expecting achievement and success from children we can assure ourselves that children will achieve and succeed. Somewhere, ability and aptitude must enter the equation but Price does not address those factors. Like many, Price believes that everyone can achieve their goals, whether it is to be a plumber or an astronaut, if they are encouraged and educated correctly. The trick is to find just the right balance of propoganda, coercion, and bribery.

A major flaw in Price's proposal is that the children who tend to do poorly in school more often than not come from the lower income strata of American society. The homes most of these children come from are not affluent at all. Because of this, those homes are largely immune to manipulations of the tax code and deaf to the exhortations of men like Price.

Price's scientific approach to the problem no doubt is largely due to the wealth of statistics available on the subject. Statistics represent correlations and it is widely believed that correlations can be manipulated. Price cites the group CEOs for Cities that a simple 1 percent increase in the number of children who attend college in 51 U.S. cities would lead to an increased revenue of $124 billion nationally, $4.6 billion in Dallas alone. If this can be achieved, cities "will reap a 'talent dividend'" of many billions nation wide. The next step then would be to find a way to increase the number of college graduates by 2%, and then three. Presumably the bulk of those additional degrees would not be in philosophy or English literature. Such degrees would be almost guaranteed to lead to a drop in income. We can assume that Price was speaking of technical and scientific degrees: pursuits that will inevitably lead to further statistical evaluations of American society.

Price's diagnosis of the problem along with his solution is made possible by the growth of statistical information and the quickly growing faith in the efficacy of policy to manipulate those numbers. The opaqueness and unpredictability of human motivation and behavior is ignored in light of statistical correlations. But the power of statistics to guide policy is an illusion. Human beings are not mice in a lab, nor are they balls on a slope. There may be a pattern to human behavior, but there is not causality. People may at times accept being enticed or prodded, but they will not be coerced or compelled without resistance.

Price is a man that has a vision of what society can and should be. Like so many progressives, Price believes that society should be led to achieve that vision. What society is must be brought into harmony with what society should be. Ideally, society can be persuaded to adopt that vision. If it will not, we can attempt to bribe it into compliance. If that fails, we must resort to compulsion to bring it into line.

If for some reason Price's vision is achieved and everyone graduates from college, who is going to work at Walmart? I suppose we can always count on philosophy and English majors to pick up the slack.

Viagra for Teachers

It was reported this morning that the Milwaukee Teachers Union is fighting the school board over Viagra. The school district is facing a financial crisis. In an effort to cut costs, the school board decided to discontinue funding Viagra in its health plan. The Milwaukee Teachers Union is upset. The school district had tried to cut costs in April by laying off 682 employees but that effort was unsuccessful. In that instance, the Teachers Union triumphed. In a new effort to cut costs, the school district targeted Viagra.

The Teachers Union argues that Viagra is necessary to treat "an exclusively gender related-related condition" and banning its coverage would in effect discriminate against men. This is not exactly true. While one gender may have a reason to use it, both genders benefit from it. For Viagra to be truly useful, at least two people are required. Both genders can benefit from Viagra or suffer from its absence. Leaving that aside, the essence of the argument is that Viagra is necessary and should therefore be covered. But sexual dysfunctional is not a medical condition that in any way affects a person's health or impedes that person's participation in society. While impotence can be a frustrating and even humiliating occurrence, it in no way jeopardizes a person's health. Humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment are not conditions that require medical treatment, though if the pharmacology industry creates a drug for those, they will be.

Unless a child is desired, sexual intercourse is not necessary. Even then, it is not essential. Science had provided alternatives. Properly understood, there is no need for Viagra at all. There is only desire for it. There is no ailment, condition, or illness that requires sexual intercourse as a treatment. Perhaps the closest one can get to a "necessary" requirement for it is if it is deemed necessary to save a marriage or relationship. But that is not a medical condition.

There is a growing confusion in society between necessary and desirable medical procedures. No matter how badly a face lift or a tummy tuck is desired, they are not necessary in any medical sense. Insecurity and vanity are not the same thing as as need and necessity. There are no limits to human vanity and desire. They are wealth creating engines that drive our economy. Most often, they are characteristics that spur the economy to keep up with their constant permutations. They also drive health care. Plastic surgery is a constantly evolving field almost exclusively driven by vanity. Sexual dysfunction is another. When the desire to look younger or have better sex become confused in the mind of an individual with the need to look younger or have better sex, psychological turbulence results. It is seen as unfair that the "rich" benefit while the rest of us languish. It is not fair that Hugh Hefner can get all the Viagra he needs or Angelina Jolie can get all the surgery she wants while we cannot. It is believed that everyone has the right to look younger, better and have great sex. We don't any more than everyone has the right to be tall, thin, or look like a GQ underwear model.

Life is full of little injustices. Some people are good looking. Others are not. Some people are tall. Others are not. Some people have good sex. Others do not. Every one wants those things but everyone doesn't get them. When a procedure or drug offers a remedy to our insecurities or a solution to our desires, everyone wants it. The problem is that not everyone can afford it: unless a way is found to make it affordable. A way has been found. That way is health insurance. If health insurance can be bent to include the desires of people rather than simply the needs of people, the floodgates will be opened. With national health care, there will be relentless pressure to expand it to include the desires of the vain, the frustrated, and the insecure. Politicians have always found it difficult to say no. Health care will be no different. The candidate who promises a breast lift to every woman who wants one and Viagra to every man who needs it will have a distinct advantage over the candidate who says we cannot afford it.

If anyone ever discovers a pill that will retard the aging process, unless that drug is cheap, the nation will go broke in a week. More broke I mean.