First Lady Michelle Obama recently gave a speech on the need to fight childhood obesity. To soften, or perhaps hide the politics of her speech, she told the audience she was addressing them not simply as the first lady, but as a mother and as a wife. To underline the point, she noted the difficulties she and her family had eating right on the campaign trail. She even mentioned how she was "shocked" when she noticed that her children had put on a "few pounds". It was this disturbing observation that contributed to her commitment to launch a campaign against childhood obesity.
Throughout her speech, the First Lady stressed how obesity among children is not simply a personal or familial issue. Neither is it a local or state issue. It is a national one. It is necessary for obesity to be a national one if the federal involvement is to get involved in the eating and exercise habits of America's children. The veneer of limited government must be preserved. Her calm, measured tone and her personal anecdotes of fighting the battle of childhood obesity gave the speech a feeling of deep sincerity. Her "shock" at finding that her own children had gained weight while on the campaign trail made the issue personal. She felt shocked because she believed she was a good mother and that she was "doing what I was supposed to do." The experience of discovering her children had gained weight was "disorienting." If childhood obesity can sneak up on the first family, how much more sinister a problem is it with the nation at large?
Her bona fides established, she went on to list a series of alarming statistics associated with the rise in childhood obesity as well engaging in economic casuistry by noting the costs associated with it due to lost work, the greater occurrence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other afflictions that affect the overweight. She stated that her husband's administration will join the private sector in combating the rise in childhood obesity. It should be pointed out that the government joins nothing. Like the Mafia, once the government becomes a partner in something, it becomes the government's.
Because she came at the problem as a mother, not a politician, any implication that her speech had a political agenda was blunted. Being a concerned mother is not a partisan position. Everyone is this together, from the First Lady on down. Secondly, it is much more problematic to be critical of a caring and loving parent who is only trying to help than a politician proposing policy. Yet, despite her soothing and sincere tone, she was proposing policy. Once her credentials were established, she laid out a list of programs she and her husband were pursuing to address the problem: and the list was a long one. From increasing physical activities in school to increasing the number of farmers markets, it was clear a lot of thought had been given to the issue. I can only presume the government will create farmers markets by giving tax breaks. I would hope that Obama is not considering opening a government franchise but, given his disdain for the free market and his appetite for government expansion, it cannot be ruled out.
The First Lady's speech was not simply a response to an alarming report or the realization that her family had put on a few pounds. It was a postion that had been given a lot of thought. Celebrities have been lined up to make speeches and commercials. Task forces have been established and policies prepared to offer support and guidance to schools. The FDA will work with food retailers to revise food labels so as to help parents make "healthy choices" in the supermarkets, as if the government and labels are needed to tell people that macaroni and cheese, ice cream, Twinkies, and soda pop will make you fat.
The creation of the FDA task force is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all. Implicit in the need for a task force to be formed is the notion that Americans are incapable of addressing the issue on their own. The plots of the fast food industry and the merchants of sloth are simply too seductive and too wily to be discovered and resisted by the average individual. The secrets of eating in moderation and exercising are too well kept to be stumbled upon. But the sinister machinations of the food industry are only part of the problem. The torpor of the American public must be overcome as well. It is believed that many Americans will only get off the couch and stay out of the ice cream section at the grocery store if the government makes them.
Of special irritation to those who seek to help the public shape up and lose weight are the many adults and children who know they are overweight and don't care. Their disinterest in their appearance and improving themselves is a bewilderment to the vain and self absorbed. They are the ones who would buy Twinkies no matter how largely or how prominently the number of calories or percentage of fat is printed on the box. They are the ones who, if they are to be helped, must be compelled or reeducated to change their ways. So compel and reeducate them the government will, especially if they do not want help or do not care that they are obese. They must be helped lest they grow ever in size and number to the point where they threaten to undermine the economy and bankrupt the nation.
The obesity problem in the U.S. we are told has become too large and too dangerous for anyone but the federal government to address. Parents have proven unable to prevent or reduce their own, or their children's size or weight. State and local governments have been ineffectual in their attempts to limit the girth of their citizens. Without the federal government's help, many will be condemned to obesity, illness, and early death. Perhaps most tragically, those people will have suffered and died needlessly. If only they had known that being overweight was unhealthy and that there were ways to avoid obesity, their fate would have been different. Only if the government is allowed to help, will people no longer be condemned to live their lives being unhealthy and obese. A solution is finally at hand, but only if counterrevolutionaries and the merchants of sloth and gluttony can be kept from hiding it.
According to modern liberalism, every overweight child is society's problem. Society's problems are the government's problems. Anyone with doubts concerning the motives or sincerity behind the desire for government involvement in the struggle against childhood obesity, need only look to the First Lady. She is a mother fighting the same struggle against childhood obesity as every other. If she thinks the government can help, who are we to doubt her?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Why Would He Even Run?
Recently, Scott Lee Cohen was nominated as the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in Illinois. Last night, less than a week after his nomination, he dropped out of the race. The reason he dropped out of the race is because it was recently revealed that he had been accused of abusing his wife. Not only that, but it was also revealed that an ex-girlfriend of his was a prostitute. Not only that, he was accused of threatening his ex-girlfriend and holding a knife to her throat. Not only that, he admits to using steroids. The steroids might help explain some the allegations against him.
The question should not be why he dropped out of the race. The question should be why did he even think of running in the first place. Society has become rather lax in its insistence on the moral rectitude of those who would hold public office. Infidelity is certainly no longer the obstacle it once was. Using steroids and even visiting a prostitute these days are things a politician might try to explain. But abusing your wife and holding a knife to your ex girlfriend's throat, (even if that ex girlfriend used to be a prostitute) are thankfully things still out of bounds. Perhaps Cohen was just pushing the envelope. I hope not. It would be depressing to think that Cohen was simply ahead of the curve.
Cohen might have just thought no one would ever find out. If so, that was his biggest mistake. That blunder alone should render him unfit for public office.
The question should not be why he dropped out of the race. The question should be why did he even think of running in the first place. Society has become rather lax in its insistence on the moral rectitude of those who would hold public office. Infidelity is certainly no longer the obstacle it once was. Using steroids and even visiting a prostitute these days are things a politician might try to explain. But abusing your wife and holding a knife to your ex girlfriend's throat, (even if that ex girlfriend used to be a prostitute) are thankfully things still out of bounds. Perhaps Cohen was just pushing the envelope. I hope not. It would be depressing to think that Cohen was simply ahead of the curve.
Cohen might have just thought no one would ever find out. If so, that was his biggest mistake. That blunder alone should render him unfit for public office.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Weight of Gold.
In an editorial in Friday's Dallas Morning News, Barbara B. Johnson lays out the sometimes unhappy plight of rich children by noting how affluence can "cheat" children. She cites Madeline Levine's book, The Price of Privilege which chronicles the difficulties rich children sometimes face in growing up. At the top of the list is the "toxic brew" of pressure parents of rich kids often place on their children to to succeed academically and socially and earn admission to prestigious universities. The success and competitive nature of wealthy parents is cited next as a cause of many of the problems besetting rich children. Successful parents expect to have successful children and so they set high goals for them and urge ambition and pressure them to excel. Johnson argues that the high expectations of wealthy parents lead them to put pressure on their children to also achieve success, both inside and outside the classroom. That pressure in turn is a cause for stress because the children feel compelled to succeed. The stress can be even more burdensome when the child's definition of success is not the one being urged by their parents. If high expectations are a cause of stress, our public schools should be filled with content and relaxed children since little pressure is put on them to succeed. The pressure to succeed is most acutely felt by those who are urged or expected to succeed.
The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.
Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.
Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.
Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.
When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.
The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.
Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.
The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.
Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.
Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.
Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.
When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.
The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.
Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Sound Fiscal Advice
Obama's proposed $3.5 trillion budget is claimed will cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. However, the budget proposed by the administration for 2010 is projected by some to come up $1.7 trillion short. The national debt is predicted to rise to just over $14 trillion by the end of the year. Adding another trillion plus dollars in red ink is a peculiar way to go about cutting the deficit. The projected deficit is an amount just slightly over the nearly $1.7 trillion spent last year to "stabilize" and "stimulate" the economy.
The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.
Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.
It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.
Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.
The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.
Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.
It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.
Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Show Trial
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the accused terrorist mastermind behind the September 11th attack, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death yesterday by the President of the United States. President Obama declared that Mohammed will "likely be executed for the crimes he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans." Actually, Obama added with gravity that Mohammed's execution is more than just likely. It is certain. "That you can be sure of" we were promised. Among the details that remain to be worked out are where Mohammed's trial will be held and the length of the trial before his conviction and death sentence are formally pronounced. Other details concerning the date, site, and method of Mohammed's execution are still being discussed. The process should not be a long one. While safety and costs are factors in deciding where to hold the trial, New York is the preferred site because it is locus of the crime and a trial there is assured to have the greatest political significance. Wherever it is ultimately held, the trial to formalize the verdict and document the crime will begin later this year.
Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.
I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.
Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.
I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Allure of Trains.
Federal money was recently awarded to California, Illinois, and Florida to assist them in their development of high speed rail projects. Many championed the awards as a significant step towards helping the environment, ending traffic congestion, and reducing pollution. It is true that rail systems can help achieve those goals. But only if they are used.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
News from Afghanistan
It was reported today that an Afghan tribe signed a pact to "burn down the houses" of those found to have sheltered insurgents. Nothing was said about how the tribe would determine who has sheltered insurgents and who hasn't. The U.S. rewarded the determination and resolve of the tribe and pledged $1.2 million in aid and job programs. It was not said that any houses would actually have to be burned down to ensure the aid. The pledge was enough.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
No Trials for the Guilty
In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, radio talk show host Mark Davis takes President Obama to task for proposing that those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere as terrorists be allowed to challenge their detention in court before a judge. He sneers at the prospect of terrorists being "paraded into federal court...to argue for their innocence." Davis goes on to criticize Obama as exhibiting a "softness [that] rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Clearly, Davis believes that everyone held in Guantanamo is guilty. Why else would they be detained? Davis, and many like him, are satisfied with the government's claim that everyone detained in Guantanamo is guilty. To allow those detained the opportunity to deny their guilt and challenge their detention in court would be the very height of weakness and timidity. To hold hearings to assess the evidence and determine the validity of the charges levied against the detainees - and they are just that; detainees - would be more than a waste of time, it would be perilous because it is claimed the evidence against them is too sensitive to be revealed in court.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
This Year Will Be Different
It is expected that in his upcoming State of the Union Address, President Obama will resolve to quit his spending, or at least get it under control. After a year of excess and extravagant government spending, Obama will vow to sober up and take steps to address the exploding federal deficit. Obama's resolution was forced because his sweetheart, the public, is threatening to leave him if he doesn't. He will promise to quit spending in October, right after he presents his budget proposal. There are still a few things he needs to buy first. After things calm down in the fall, he promises, he will get his spending under control. There is to much stress at work to quit right now. It is hoped that Obama's resolution to cut down will assuage a public increasingly concerned with his excessive and compulsive spending. He will be a new man. A thrifty and responsible man. A simple, hard working man we can trust once again and rely upon to keep a roof over our head and burglars from our door. Things will be different, he will promise, you'll see.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
It's Not Obama's Fault.
Acknowledging possible defeat on the health care bill, Obama refuses to take any responsibility for the opposition to his plan. It is not facing failure because the plan is flawed. It is the long, complicated political process and the political machinations of those opposed to it that are making it look flawed. The protracted negotiations that threaten health care reform are being criticized by Obama. He asserts that the possible failure of his plan is because those opposed to it are trying to make his health care plan look like a "monstrosity." His plan is not facing defeat because it is a monstrosity he claims, but because the "legislative process" is making it look like one. Moreover, it is asserted that it is not Obama at risk of losing, but the American people. Obama has conceded that, while he might have made some errors in the handling of his health care plan, it is the maneuvering and machinations of the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and their allies in Congress that are putting his plan in jeopardy.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Edward's Shame
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally admitted to having an affair with his mistress and fathering a daughter with her. His confession came in advance of a soon to be released book by a former aide where Edward's affair will be chronicled. "It was wrong of me to ever deny she was my daughter" Edwards said solemnly. After denying the affair and his paternity, Edward's confession was finally forced by uncontroversial evidence to the contrary. Edward's previously had attempted to avoid his culpability, even to the point of maneuvering to have one of his aides take responsibility for being the father. Speaking of his daughter, Edwards said "hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." I am sure he hopes we will forgive him as well once we understand.
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Puzzle of Obesity.
More news on the obesity front: the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force has concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Costs of Obesity
Although the rate of obesity in the U.S. did not rise over the last year, (perhaps due the poor economy), it was reported in this morning's Dallas Morning News that in the U.S. more than two thirds of adults, and a third of children remain overweight. The percentage of "extremely obese" children and young adults has risen from 9 percent in 2000 to fifteen percent today. "We haven't turned the corner yet" said Dr. William Dietz, an expert on obesity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to statistics, the majority of Americans are overweight. Sixty four percent of Americans are described as overweight. Thirty four percent of those are considered obese. Seventeen percent of children were reported as obese. Most of those children were "extremely obese" as measured by the body mass index. Ten percent of of babies and toddlers are "precariously heavy." The statistics, if nothing else, indicate that growth does not stop after puberty. The good news is that the rate of obesity, as troubling as it is, has remained steady over the last five years. The bad news is that the obese are getting even more obese.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hair in the eyes of Texas
The contest in Mesquite, TX over a young boy's hair is dragging on. Four year old Taylor Pugh attended school Tuesday with his long locks flowing. He was promptly sent to the library. The young Pugh and his parents have been in a contest with the school district for the last three months over the length of Taylor's hair. His hair violates the school's dress code because it covers his eyes and falls to his shoulders. Mesquite school district officials have argued that the dress code is necessary to provide an environment free of distraction. Several appeals courts have upheld the legality of student dress codes.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Paying Back the Taxpayers
It was reported this morning that President Obama wants to make sure that the taxpayers are paid back the $700 billion the government provided to troubled financial sector. This is a fine position to take. But I have to wonder, even if the financial sector pays the money back, will the taxpayers really be repaid? Or will it be the government that is repaid?
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Harry Reid's Big Mouth
Republicans are seeking to get some mileage out of Senator Harry Reid's recent comments saying that Obama is "light skinned" and speaks without a "negro dialect." Many republicans relish the opportunity to turn the table on the democrats. Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has called for Reid to resign from the Senate. "There is a standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouth of one of their own" said Steele. There is truth in this. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to give the benefit of doubt when one of their own makes an insensitive or insulting comment. They are inclined to understand it as a misstatement or slip of the tongue signifying no sinister or malicious motivation. If a Republican says something insensitive, or just plain foolish, Democrats are quick to perceive the worst.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Knowing When to Take the Blame
On Thursday, President Obama stepped up and took responsibility for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner Christmas day. He had previously criticized the intelligence agencies responsible for preventing just such attacks. After being careful to point out that he was not to blame - it was the "system" that failed - Obama nevertheless decided to take responsibility. "When the system fails," he stated, "it is my responsibility to take the blame." By taking the blame he showed character and demonstrated his resolve to fix what went wrong. His determination to identify and implement the steps necessary to ensure it never happens again redounds to his credit. It is certain he will get applause for taking the blame.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Immigration & Health Care
President Obama and Democratic members of Congress have stated that the health insurance plan being proposed will not cover those illegally in the U.S. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That issue is too politically explosive" said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Despite his assertion, the matter is ambiguous. Some plans being proposed to extend coverage to the uninsured contain no method of determining legal residency. Plans that do require proof of eligibility will rely on easily forged documents such as drivers licences and social security cards. The very same documents often used to fraudulently obtain jobs and other public services. Some states even provide drivers licences to illegal immigrants, further complicating the matter. There is little reason to suppose the federal government would be any more thorough in checking those documents, particularly if there is no sincere desire to authenticate those documents. While it may be true that the bill as worded may be interpreted as disallowing coverage to illegal immigrants, the issue is not so clear cut. An amendment put forward by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving subsidized health care under the bill was defeated, further casting doubt on the government's determination to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Joy is in the Details
Amidst the recent tumult over national health care some interesting details were overlooked. According to an article in this mornings Dallas Morning News, only 41 percent of the health goals set by the government in 1990 have been achieved. The results for the goals set in 2000 were even worse, 24 percent. The results forecast for 2010 look to be little, if at all better. The statistics in other areas were equally disappointing. While there were some positive statistics such as a rise in vaccination rates and a reduction in the numbers of strokes and heart attacks, the overall numbers were at best disappointing, especially considering how much money was spent. The poor statistics must certainly have played a role in the government's decision to take things in hand.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, December 25, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)