Blitzkrieg.

President Obama signed a series of tax breaks and spending plans designed to spur the still sputtering economy yesterday. He is at the moment making a push to get his immigration reform plan through Congress. He is also working feverishly to get his health care reform bill signed into law. Education and banking reform are on the table. So are the issues of energy and the environment. Many other issues, domestic and foreign are on Obama's list. I think the country could use some time off. The country might benefit if it can go a few days without reading about Obama or Washington on the front page. At least it might be able to relax and catch its breath.

But it won't. Obama insists on keeping the government moving at a frantic pace. The problem is, Congress doesn't move at a frantic pace. It can't. It was designed to move at a slow and tedious pace. It was intended to be a bottle neck in which policy would be studied, sifted, and discussed. This was so that the federal government would not act out of passion and urgency, but out of deliberation and reason. It was acknowledged that, because of this, legislation would move at a slow pace. The benefit was that it helped ensure that only legislation that was well considered, thought through, and deemed legitimately beneficial and acceptable to the majority of Americans would be enacted. The system was designed to inhibit the ambitions of impatient and opportunistic men. In other words, it was designed to prevent just what is going on now.

Granted, the government has only very rarely been able to live up to the designs and expectations of the Founders. Nevertheless, even if the only benefit the system provides is to slow Congress down and force debate, it is worth the cost. Passion and urgency have never resulted in good policy. Laws and policies enacted in the midst of zeal are an ill fit for times of calm. The time it takes to craft, consider, debate, and pass legislation allows time for public reflection. The technological advances since the time of the Founders allows the public to participate and be aware of what is going on in Washington to an extent unimaginable to the Founders. The result is an increase in information available to voters and the opening of new avenues for participation. But, even with technology, the process of deliberation still takes time. When the issue is as large and complex as health care reform, still more time may be required.

Legislation as large and complex as the health care bill before Congress requires a huge amount of attention and concentration for it to be even begun to be understood. It is an extraordinarily complex bill that is not understood in its entirety even by those voting on it, let alone those who will have to live by it. This makes the urgency claimed needed by the administration to pass it all the more disturbing. They are asking the public to trust that the government knows what it is doing and that any problems in the bill will eventually be worked out to public satisfaction.

Most groups who support it understand only those parts of it that affect them. The rest of the bill they are content to leave to others to weigh and examine. As for the public at large, they are left to decide the matter on the basis of whether it is simply good or bad for them. Even then, the public often relies upon what others tell them about how it will affect them. More often than not, they rely on their gut. In any event, I suppose it doesn't matter what the voters think at this point. They are not voting on the issue. Obama and Congress do not trust them to vote. That is why Washington is in such a hurry to get the bill passed before the fall elections. They are preparing a feast and they don't want the children in the kitchen while they are trying to cook.

The passion, zeal, and frustration on the part of those trying to push health care through is not well thought out. Amendments and alterations are being made on the fly. The many rules and procedures that have been criticized and found so frustrating to those pushing to get the legislation passed were put there to keep one side from acting rashly or beating the other into submission or irrelevancy. It is certain that when the Democrats find themselves in the same position at some point in the future, they will rely on the very maneuvers and procedures they are now condemning. Chances are with the precedent that is now being set, they will have less success than the Republicans have achieved.

The need for national health care has been explained may times. The urgency has yet to be explained satisfactorily. It could simply be the awareness that familiarity breeds contempt. If the bill lingers too long in Washington, the people will weary of it. A strange fear considering the broad support for it claimed by the administration. It could also be a calculation on the part of the administration that if they keep enough things moving, flashing, and beeping, the public will be unable to concentrate.

Obama and his administration are perfecting a new form of political warfare: the legislative blitzkrieg. Republicans cannot defend everything at once. The presidency is a much more agile institution than the Congress. If the administration can move aggressively and quickly on enough fronts, it can disorient and divide its slower moving opponent and prevent organized resistance. When a break through is achieved, it is to be exploited. Pockets of resistance can be cleaned up after the victory is won. The essence of the blitzkrieg is to keep your opponents off balance and not allow them the time to regroup and reorganize. The urgency behind the push for national health care is being used for the same effect. There is no need for health care reform to be passed this month or next. There is no need for it to be passed this year. But the administration knows that resistance will harden in time, not soften. That is why it is trying to seize the moment and striking with such fury. With the increasingly gloomy forecast for Democrats in the Fall, it is unlikely they will ever get this close to victory again.

Yet, what is becoming unclear is just who the administration's opponent is. Is it the Republicans? Or is it time?

Republican Alamo or Iwo Jima?

Some Democrats in the House are proposing the use of a procedural short cut to get around opposition to the Health Care bill now before Congress. The procedure would allow the Senate version of the bill that is before the House to be passed through budget reconciliation. That is, without a new vote. The bill would simply be "deemed" passed. Republicans are outraged. Many Democrats are uneasy. Rep. Chris Van Holen, D-MD argued that the move is necessary because Republicans are "trying to deceive the public." Leader of the House, Steny Hoyer defended the move arguing "it is consistent with the rules." Van Holen's histrionics aside, Hoyer, at least, has a case.

But what is peculiar about the maneuver is that many of the bill's supporters would allow the bill to be passed without taking the opportunity to publicly renew their support and passing on the chance to harangue their opponents. In many ways, the bill would be passed anonymously. There would be no speeches, no debate. There would be no explicit vote on the Senate bill. The bill would simply be "deemed" passed. A curious way to pass a popular bill. It is as if some supporters of the bill are afraid to stand up and restate their support and, if necessary, take the issue to the voters.

One would think that support for a bill this sweeping would be a cause for speeches and press releases. One might assume that the supporters of the bill would welcome a renewed debate and the opportunity such a debate would provide to bolster their position. One might think that for a bill this important, and, as we are led to believe, this popular, many would be eager to take the issue before voters in the Fall. Why the urgency? Why the trepidation? What are they afraid of? They are not afraid of Speaker Pelosi. They are not afraid of Obama or the lobbyists supporting the bill. They are afraid of the voters. They are afraid of the fall elections. The best case scenario for democrats is that the public truly supports their plan. If that is the case, they can expect to win big in November. They then could then crush any republican opposition to the bill. Democrats would be vindicated and republicans would be chastened. The worst case scenario is that the public would continue to sour on the bill, the democrats will lose in September and republicans will be emboldened. Evidently, democrats are not very confident that the best case scenario will come about.

There is a large and growing opposition to the bill among the public. Many Americans are becoming increasingly uneasy as details of the bill leak out. The longer the debate goes on, the more uneasy the public becomes. To consider the Senate bill would reopen too many issues in the House and risk the tenuous majority that was assembled in the Senate to pass it.

Support among the public for the bill has been steadily eroding. Obama and democrats in Congress want to move on to new issues. Quite a few democrats in Washington are concerned that continued debate over health care reform would undermine support and cost them in the Fall elections. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. Interestingly, few Republicans seem to share that fear.

If the out manned republicans can hold out until Fall, they still can win the battle. Whatever the possibility of victory, the republicans should fight as hard and as long as they can. The out manned Japanese fought desperately to defend Iwo Jima. The out manned Texans fought desperately to defend the Alamo. They both lost. However, unlike Japan, Texas rallied after the loss and ultimately won the war. If republicans can hold on until fall, they still might win the battle. If they can't, they need to convince voters that they were defending the Alamo and not Iwo Jima. If they succeed, even though they lose the battle over health care, they still can win the war.

Democrats might think that once they pass their health care legislation, the issue will at long last be behind them. If they do, they are mistaken. The issue will be in front of them. They will face the issue again in the fall and for many elections to come.

Executive Arrogance

President Obama's recent criticism of the Supreme Court has caused a stir in political and legal circles. It was an attack on the Supreme Court by a sitting president concerning a decision by the court. It should not have been unexpected.

The arrogance of Obama's administration has long been on display. His increasingly strident rhetoric and heavy handedness in pushing his policies is alarming. It appears that Obama genuinely feels he is a man of destiny. Fate has marked him for greatness and ordained him reshape American society. He is increasingly frustrated by those who are standing in the way of his destiny. Obama's decision to try and ram his mammoth health care plan through Congress before this Fall's election is testimony to his impatience with those who oppose him.

He at times would have us believe that those who are standing in his way are doing so out of pettiness, ignorance, and malice. Even the Supreme Court is conspiring against him. Like others before him, Obama feels history is on his side. He is leading an effort that would have government embrace every facet of American life and lead society into a new age of enlightenment, prosperity, and compassion. While he will admit the details of some of his plans may bear discussion, the plans themselves are noble and should be embraced. Only revanchist elements and counterrevolutionaries oppose him. It is Obama's arrogance and his firm conviction in the righteousness of his crusade that risks fracturing Washington, not the machinations of counterrevolutionary elements.

Looking for Dragons.

On Saturday, President Obama called for an overhaul, of the nation's schools. It was announced that the administration would send its "blueprint" for improving the nation's 100,000 public schools to Congress soon. The administration is once again determined to succeed where previous administrations have failed. "We've got to get accountability right this time" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. It is the goal of the administration to make sure every student should graduate high school "prepared for college and a career." That is a tall order. The current law requires students to perform at grade level. To attempt to prepare every high school graduate in the United States for college or a career is a monumentally Utopian idea. It is as if Obama and Duncan never attended high school. Certainly not a public high school.

The administration intends to go about this task through the usual methods, giving money to those schools that meet standards and withholding money from schools that don't. Since the federal government has no direct authority over schools, it can only bribe and coerce. Schools that achieve the new standards will benefit by receiving more money and getting a longer leash. Those that do not meet standards will have their teachers and administrators purged. It is hoped that a bill can be drafted by August. The new bill will have a new name. It was felt that "No Child Left Behind" sounded too harsh and was too likely to be associated with the earlier, largely unsuccessful program that some said put too much pressure on teachers. The administration is working on a new name. I might suggest something along the lines of A Great Leap Forward.

The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are grumbling at the new proposal. They claim that, like earlier attempts at education reform, the new proposal places too much responsibility on teachers to meet standards set by Washington. They have a legitimate complaint. Education is a complex problem with many variables. Teachers are different. Students are different. Schools are different. Parents are different. A program developed in Washington will be unable to take all those variables into consideration. Even if, as is claimed, the program would simply be a "blueprint", it will be a blueprint that all schools will be pressured to use.

The tools available to Washington to affect education are few and blunt. They can set standards and they can manipulate funding, but they cannot address the complexities of education. There are just too many variables. Most of those variables are too subtle and too complex to be addressed by any legislation passed in Washington. Washington can demand results, but they cannot bring those results about. Only teachers, parents, and students can. Holding teachers and schools hostage to standards set in Washington is not a solution. Earlier attempts to do so have been unsuccessful. Curriculum and pedagogy were manipulated to achieve the results desired by Washington and the results were disappointing. So disappointing in fact, that the administration has decided to have another go at it. To try and manage the curriculum and set standards for 100,000 public schools across the United States is indicative of the monumental arrogance of the Obama administration. Obama's faith in the efficacy of federal government to solve all the nation's problems is absolute. How many overhauls does the nation really need?

Even with a struggling economy, a swelling federal deficit, a battle being waged over health care, two wars being fought in the Middle East, growing tension with Iran and China, and a host of other problems, the administration is still looking for new dragons to slay. It has yet to slay even one. Obama increasingly needs a victory. He is determined to find one, no matter where.

The Cost of Doing Something.

The struggle over national health care is consuming vast amounts of time and energy in Washington. Congressmen, aides, staff, and the White House have all put countless hours and untold effort into drafting and redrafting health care legislation. Considerable amounts of time have been put into debating the issue, making speeches, and issuing press reports. Obama and leaders in Congress have time and again warned the public about the costs of doing nothing. They make a good point.

There are at the moment over 1,000 different pieces of legislation before Congress. Some of them are important. There is the Cybersecurity Act. There is the Food Safety Modernization Act. There are bills concerning immigration reform, credit card reform, and mortgage reform. There are bills concerning the environment and clean water. There are also two conflicts we are at the moment fighting in the Middle East. There is the growing tension with Iran. There is increasing friction with China. And, of course, there is the struggling economy.

Despite the persistent and strident rhetoric in Washington about the costs of doing nothing, the issue of health care reform is not simply a question about doing something or doing nothing. The government has many things to do. It is a question about persisting to the point of obsession to push health care reform into law or doing something else. As for the costs, we have a pretty good idea what the cost of passing health care will be: $1 trillion. The cost of not passing it will be considerably less.

There is an election later this year which could go a long way towards resolving the dispute. The issue is not going to go away. The country might very well be better off if Washington can find other things to do in the meantime.

Serious About Waste and Fraud.

Continuing his struggle for health care reform, Obama announced that if his program is enacted, he will get serious about rooting out fraud. He even proposed to bring in private auditors to run down those suspected of fraud. To convey the determination of the administration, those private auditors were referred to as "bounty hunters". They will be men and women dedicated to bring scofflaws and cheats to justice. Their ruthlessness and determination will be ensured because they will be able to keep some of what they collect. While unwed mothers and cheats may be intimidated by bounty hunters, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies will be much less so.

It is estimated that improper Medicare and Medicaid payments alone cost the government $54 billion in 2009. How much of the $54 billion was due to fraud as opposed to incompetence or mismanagement is unclear. A pilot program run in Texas, California, and New York did provide some encouragement that there was something to the administration's claim. They were able to recover $900 million in fraudulent claims from 2005-2008. However the fact that over $900 million was spent on fraudulent claims in just three states does little to reassure that the government will manage a federal health care plan effectively.

It is encouraging that the administration has chosen to get tough on fraud and waste. But given the prevalence fraud and waste in government, one has to suspect its ability. In the 2010 budget, only $140 million was identified as waste out of $3.6 trillion appropriated. There is certainly much more. No figure was given to the amount expected to be lost through fraud. The government rarely budgets for fraud.

The main problem with trying to ferret out waste is the assumption that waste is something distinct from the system. The truth is, waste is part of the system. According to the Heritage Foundation, there was $72 billion in improper payouts in 2008. That money was either paid to the wrong people or spent for the wrong reasons. Another $25 billion was spent to maintain vacant property owned by the government. $13 billion was either lost or stolen in Iraq. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina cost another $2 billion. The GAO identified $202 billion in DOD cost overruns. The size of the federal government, the scores of agencies and bureaus, the tangle of regulations, and the vast number of employees ensure there will be redundancy, waste, and error. Bureaus are not machines and employees are not computers.

Human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that somewhere along the line money is going to be intercepted and misappropriated. It is to be expected that some people will try to avail themselves of the money offered by misrepresenting themselves or their circumstances. Some of those people are very good at it. A cumbersome bureaucracy with abundant money to spend and an opportunistic society is a recipe for fraud. One can change rules and systems, but one cannot change people. That is why there will always be people who rob banks.

The federal government has long demonstrated its inability to curb waste and fraud. The health care system in the U.S. is already riddled with it. From contractor fraud and insurance fraud to welfare fraud, there are always going to be people looking to take advantage of a situation. At least private insurance companies have an incentive to curb false and erroneous claims and cut waste. They want to make a profit. The government does not have to make a profit and so its incentives to save money will be far less compelling. A billion dollar federal health care plan can expect to lose untold tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in waste and fraud every year. You can tinker with agencies and regulations, but you cannot tinker with human nature.

If health care reform is enacted, the amount of waste and corruption in health care will only increase. Perhaps every two years or so we will hear campaign promises to ferret out waste and curb corruption. But it is unlikely there will be any more success in rooting in out than we experience now. If anything, there will be less. The FBI will not be investigating health care fraud. Nor will it examine the books. Accountants and bureaucrats will. And trusting Congress to curb waste would be futile.

If Obama succeeds in getting his plan passed, it better work as well as he claims. Otherwise, not only will the nation's health care suffer, but its bank account will be pilfered. The government may be able to do something to lessen the costs of fraud. But it will not be able to get rid of it. It is part of human nature. Neither will it be able to do much about waste and inefficiency. Those are part of government's nature. Nevertheless, work should be done to keep it pruned. I can only hope that Obama's promise was not really a threat that he intends to ignore fraud and waste if his bill is not passed. Government waste and fraud should be pursued vigorously regardless of whether health care reform is passed.

Results May Vary

When the stimulus bill was passed, it was heralded by many as an important and vital program to help those struggling in the economy. It would make it easier for those without work to get some and for those down on their luck to survive the drought. It was the plight of the unemployed and the struggling that spurred Obama and Congress to take action. So, how is that going?

Last fall, North Texas received $25 million in stimulus funds to help the homeless and those on the verge of homelessness. Only about $2 million of that has been spent. The small amount spent has nothing to do with the lack of applicants for those funds. It has to do with government management. It is not unusual for applicants to have to wait several weeks to get an appointment. This is attributed by some to the lack of staff needed to process the paper work along with the large numbers of people filing for assistance. Others attribute at least part of the problem to difficulties with the computer system used to process the claims. Curiously, while some claim the difficulties have to do with the unanticipated number of applicants, others worry that not enough people are aware of the program or now how to apply for assistance. "There is a lot of money that people don't know they could access" said an official working for one of the programs administering the funds.

Like for all federal programs, the application process is laborious. Applicants must first have an interview to determine eligibility. Next, they must provide documentation of income, or lack thereof, as well as housing status. Those without an income are not eligible for the program. The program only provides help with rent and utilities, not mortgages or other bills. Those seeking help with mortgages and bills are referred to another office for assistance where they have to start all over again. Presumably there are some signs posted on the wall to that effect. One applicant groused that he had called several agencies before he finally got an appointment. At that appointment he was told he was ineligible for that particular program because he did not have a job. He applied had to the wrong agency. Others seeking aid found out it would take a month to get an appointment just to apply for the aid. If they were approved for aid, it would take up to four months more to receive it. No doubt there is a story for every applicant.

When federal programs are enacted, they are announced with fanfare. The public is told of the great needs that program will meet and what a benefit it will be to society. The program will feed the hungry, shelter the poor, assist the struggling, ameliorate some crisis or another, and provide succor for those in need. Chances are statistics will be laid out such as how much money has been appropriated and how many people it is expected will be helped and how much they will be helped. Politicians will make speeches and take credit for the hard work they put in to provide that relief. Interest groups will issue press releases where they too will take credit for working to get the program enacted and laud the help that program will provide. Government will be able to move on to the next issue. Society will be able to relax and get on about its business comfortable in knowing that the less fortunate are being tended to.

However, it is those in need of that program that have to endure it. They are the ones who experience its true effects. The measure of a federal or state program is not the money budgeted, the number of offices and employees, or the mission statement. The true measure of a program is how it affects those who must rely upon it. It is the ones standing in line and filling out the forms that are best able to speak to the efficacy of a program. It is the ones who must meet the stipulations and bear the burdens that come with that aid that are best able to testify to its merits. If you want to know how successful or effective a program is, do not speak with the politicians who crafted it or the lobbyists who supported it. They do not rely upon those programs. Speak with the people who do.

Health Care and Abortion

Amidst the discussions in Washington over health care reform lurks the issue of abortion. Not much has been said lately about the issue. Many in Washington have been content to ignore the topic in the interest of moving the bill forward, most notably, President Obama. But the issue is there and it will have to be addressed sooner or later.

It will not be an easy issue to resolve. It cuts across both parties. It will not be enough to overcome Republican opposition to its inclusion. There are many Democrats that will have to be accommodated as well. Obama stated that he doesn't want to change the government's policy on abortion. If this is true, he is one of few in the nation.

Many politicians in Washington would just like the issue to go away. Life would be much easier if there was a way to simply tip toe around the issue. Life would be even better if it could be ignored. But it can't. It is a divisive topic that, after over 30 years, still stirs great debate and emotion. There is no indication that the the debate over abortion will go away. Obama is pleading with Democrats to overcome their division over the issue. He is on the threshold of history and he needs their support.

Obama has sought to reassure abortion rights supporters by telling them that his legislation will not change government policy. But that policy itself is one that has done little if anything to soften the debate. Indeed, it has often contributed to it. He has also sought to appease anti-abortion groups through assurances that national health care will not wind up funding abortions. They have little reason to be assured. Self imposed restraints have proven to be flimsy bulwarks against government expansion. Pro-choice groups want reassurance that national health care will not infringe or encroach upon abortion rights that have been so long and desperately fought for. The passionate on both sides of the issue are vigilant and on the watch for appeasement. They do not get along and they are determined not to coexist. No matter what Obama or Congress does, they are going to antagonize one group or the other.

It is inevitable that when Obama has to choose, he will choose pro-choice over pro-life, as will most Democrats in Congress. They have to. Their political lives depend on it. The same is true for many Republicans. They will have to oppose extending coverage to include abortion if they hope to be reelected.

Conservatives have greater cause to be suspicious of Obama's assurances. Abortion rights have been extended relentlessly over the years. There is no reason to think that they are going to remain fixed, let alone retreat. A government that supports and funds abortion will be unlikely to long observe any self imposed restraint on the issue. Just because Obama promises not to include abortion coverage in the bill today does not mean someone will not do so tomorrow. Unless withholding funding from abortion is explicit in the bill, sooner or later the government will wind up funding it. You can count on that. There will be too much pressure not to do so.

Later this year, when Democrats hit the road for reelection, they will be relying upon an enthusiastic Democratic Party. If that party wants federal health care to cover abortion, its leaders will accommodate them. And, if they do so, they will be handing Republicans a campaign issue such as one they usually can only hope for. Abortion is still an open wound in American politics. National health care will assure that wound is picked at. As much as Speaker Pelosi might protest, the health care bill under consideration is not simply about "providing quality affordable health care for all Americans." Nothing Washington does is that simple. To say otherwise is disingenuous or naive. And Pelosi is not naive.

30 years after segregation was ended, no one was arguing that it should be reinstated. 30 years after women were given the right to vote, no one was arguing that their right to vote should be rescinded. 30 years after laws against intermarriage were found unconstitutional, no one was insisting that decision be overturned. Yet, over 30 years after abortion was deemed a right, a bitter debate continues. That should tell us a lot about the issue. Clearly there is something about abortion that grates on human nature.

What?

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Froma Harrop wrote an editorial in which she addressed the languor of the American consumer. Consumers have become more cautious. Investors have become more wary. Americans have become decidedly more hesitant to part with their money. They have become inclined to hold on to their money because they are uncertain about the future. As a result, the economy is suffering.

After a lengthy and informative discussion of the topic, Harrop concludes that the remedy for the economic torpor affecting the U.S. is the passage of national health care. Harrop's reasoning is that if the American people did not have to worry about obtaining or keeping health insurance, their mood would improve and they would go out and boost the economy by spending their money on new dresses and tool boxes and taking the family to Disneyland. There may be something to this. Harrop just might be on to something. But why stop at health care? If people did not have to fret over auto insurance, they would be more apt to spend money in ways more productive to the economy. They could buy new shoes or take a day at the spa. If they did not have to worry about paying rent or mortgages, their delight would only increase and they would spend even more money fueling the economy by purchasing flat screen televisions and new lawnmowers. One can only marvel at the economic wonders that would occur if the American people did not have to concern themselves with paying their bills and taking care of themselves.

It is doubtlessly true that most Americans, if they did not have to spend their money on health insurance, or hoard it in trepidation, would spend it on something. National health care would go a long way towards lifting a burden from the public. Being released from burdens and obligations does much to improve one's spirits. Buoyed spirits would certainly be a benefit to the economy. Many would be happy if they woke up one morning and were told that their health care will now be taken care of. Perhaps they would go shopping to celebrate. But that happiness will be fleeting. Sooner or later the public will come into contact with that bureaucratic monster and feel its cost. Going hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt and creating a mammoth new federal bureaucracy is certainly a long way around to lifting public spirits.

So, according to Harrop, even if national health care does nothing to improve health care in the U.S., it is still a good program because as a "mood enhancer" it will encourage hesitant consumers. I can't help but suspect that there must be a better way to enhance the mood of the American consumer than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a health care program that many don't want and there is little consensus will work. Why not simply give that money back to the public? There are few things better to lift a consumer's spirit than getting a check in the mail. If nothing else, a few hundred billion dollars in the hands of consumers would certainly give the economy a boost.

2nd Amendment

During oral arguments yesterday before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns, Justice Antonin Scalia stated in response to an argument before the court that "The right to keep and bear arms is right there...in the Bill of Rights." I checked. He is right. It is there.

Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms is not in the Eight Amendment, nor in the Fourth Amendment. It is in the Second Amendment; the amendment right after the one that grants us freedom of speech. Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was important to the Framers. So much so that they put it right near the top. If other Amendments can sometimes be stretched to the very limits of credulity, why cannot the Second Amendment be read to include what it states plainly?

Fly in the Ointment

Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky is single handedly blocking legislation to keep several government programs up and running. Among the things affected by Bunning's blockage are such things as extending unemployment benefits, worker furloughs, and the provision of highway funds. While the amount appropriated in the legislation is near infinitesimal by Washington standards, a mere $10 billion, the effects will be felt. Bunning's obstinacy lay in his insistence that the $10 billion appropriation bill actually be paid for rather than simply piled atop the massive federal deficit. One reason for Bunning's obstinacy is that he is not running for reelection. "If we can't find $10 billion to pay for it," said Bunning, "then we're not going to pay for anything." Unlike many in Washington, Bunning's decision not to seek reelection gives him the luxury of being responsible.

Bunning's stand is causing problems in Washington. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine lamented that there are 500 people in Maine whose benefits would expire as a result of Bunning's action. With due sympathy for those workers, I do not see how maintaining benefits for 500 unemployed workers in Maine is justification for supporting a $10 billion federal appropriations bill. The state of Maine sent $6.3 billion in federal taxes to Washington in 2007 alone. It wouldn't have taken very much of that to keep 500 people employed.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused Bunning of playing political games. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important projects around the country" he said in a statement. LaHood spoke as if "playing political games" was only limited to opposing legislation and did not include the practice of jumbling bills together to inhibit opposition. Despite the billions sloshing back and forth in Washington, money is tight. And, while the national debt swells and many programs and agencies are facing shortfalls and budget cuts, Obama insists on pushing a health care bill that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government does not have.

The state of California had $37.5 million in federal highway funds put on hold due to Bunning's action. The state of Virginia had $49.5 million put on hold. The state of California sent nearly $414 billion in tax receipts to Washington in 2007 (roughly $8,590 per person). The state of Virginia sent nearly $62 billion (roughly $8,000 per person). If only a small percentage of those federal tax receipts were left in the hands of those two states, social programs could be funded and very few roads would go unpaved. If only a portion of the taxes collected were left in the hands of the tax payers of those two states, their economies would be much better off and therefore far fewer workers would have been laid off. Those states could also spend that money on things they needed, such as extending unemployment benefits, improving education, and providing social services besides simply repairing roads and maintaining bridges. In short, they could spend that money on things they needed rather than on things Washington wanted. And therein lies the rub.

"I don't know how you negotiate with the irrational" said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking of Bunning. This presumes that spending billions of dollars one does not have is rational. When it comes to Bunning's maneuver, the administration and Congress are coming to sound like the customer who, while attempting to buy a new television suddenly has his credit card cut up and then laments "how will I feed my children?" The children are hungry, the roof is leaking, the porch needs repair, and the washer and dryer are broken. But Washington is still trying to buy a flat screen television.

Demanding that federal programs be paid for is not a game. Insisting the government spend only what it takes in is not irrational. It is just the opposite. Many in Washington are being irresponsible when they suggest that insisting on fiscal sobriety is a game. It is time someone stepped up and said no.

Time is Running Out

"It is time for us to act. It is time for us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and get this done" said president Obama recently. He was not speaking of addressing the exploding national debt or the still flagging economy. He was speaking in regard to his plan to overhaul health care in the United States. He not only wants national health care reform passed, he needs it passed. The failure of his health care plan would deal a major blow to his presidency. The action he was referring to was in regard to the use of parliamentary maneuvering to circumvent opposition in the Senate. It is a maneuver that even some of his allies are warning him against.

President Obama is growing increasingly irritated at those who are standing between him and destiny. His ambition to enshrine government as the single most salient force in the lives of Americans and himself in history is at risk of being thwarted by 41 Republican Senators. Obama went on to say somewhat ominously that "we cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks time or six week's time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, that is what elections are for."

He is very much correct. That is what elections are for. Of course, Obama was referring to the election 17 months ago, not the election 7 months from now. I suspect it is his apprehension regarding the upcoming elections that underlay his growing impatience. Polls are showing that, not only is Obama's Health Care plan steadily losing support among the public, but that the Democrats can expect to lose a considerable number of seats in the House and the Senate this Fall. While they may not lose their majority, they very well may lose enough seats that they will no longer be able to muscle their agenda through Congress. Significant losses would chasten surviving Democrats in Congress and make their support less reliable for Obama as well as embolden Republican opposition. On the other hand, if it turns out the Democrats fair well in the elections, Obama can claim his policies have been vindicated. Not only that, but Republican intransigence would undoubtedly be softened. But Obama doesn't want to take a chance. Which is to say, he doesn't really want to put his health care plan up for a vote, not to the American people anyway.

In the contest to move his agenda forward and keep the support of the American people and Congress, time is not on Obama's side. That, perhaps, is the true cause of Obama's sense of urgency. If Obama and his allies in Congress are so convinced that this bill is what the American people want, why can't they wait seven months to see if they are correct? If they are, surely the American people will still want national health care reform in November. Moreover, the public frustration with those obstructing it would only increase in the intervening months which in turn could only work to Obama's and the Democrats' advantage in the Fall.

The stakes are indeed high. We should put health care to a vote. But we should put it to the American people for a vote, not the U.S. Senate. It is the people, after all, who will have to pay for it. They will also have to live with it. They ought to have a say. It is not often when an election occurs amidst heated debate over a major policy issue. We should not waste the opportunity. Why not wait seven months and let emotions cool. Then we can see what the people have to say about national health care. With so much invested in its existence, it is unlikely the health care issue is going to go away. If it gets worse, so much the better for the Democrats in the Fall. In the mean time, there are plenty of other things to keep Obama and Congress busy.

As for Washington living up to its responsibilities to the American people, whether and to what extent those responsibilities include providing health care is precisely what the debate is about.

Health Care Push.

President Obama refused to be chastened by the recent election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the U.S. Senate. On Monday, he revealed his proposal to push his health care plan through the Senate by using the procedure of reconciliation. The maneuver would allow a simple majority vote that would undermine any filibuster by the GOP. Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's information director stated that "the American people deserve an up or down vote on health care reform." GOP senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said using the procedure would be a "big mistake." The reason for the urgency on the part of Obama is that, according to administration officials, reconciliation is "the last, best hope for comprehensive health care reform."

This is most likely true. If the election of Scott Brown is any indication of the sentiment of the American public, the Democrats are facing significant losses in the upcoming elections. Reconciliation could very well be the "last best hope" to get the bill passed before anyone, including the public, can do anything about it. Waiting seven months for the next election to see what the public really thinks about health care reform would not be the end of civilization as we know it. But waiting seven months very well could be the end of Obama's health care plan. There is little indication that the public is clamoring for a quick passage of health care reform. The parliamentary maneuver of reconciliation would reflect the administration's urgency to get health care reform enacted, not the public's.

Hurling Lead in Afghanistan

The President of Afghanistan pleaded to the United States and Great Britain that their troops make a greater effort to stop killing civilians. The plea came recently after 16 civilians, including a family of 12, were killed accidentally in a western offensive in Marja. "We've been hurling lead all day" said a Marine lieutenant involved in the assault. In a recent NATO air strike, 27 civilians were killed. The planes did not know that the convoy they attacked consisted of civilians. Last Thursday, 7 Iraqi policemen were killed in an air strike after they were suspected of planting a bomb. Last Monday, 5 more Iraqis were killed in another mistaken air strike. NATO commander, U.S. General McChrystal apologized. The U.S. said it will see what it can do to prevent civilian casualties. On the bright side, of the 2,412 civilians reported killed last year, only 30 percent were attributed to NATO. It is unclear how many Afghans accepted McChrystal's apology.

While the death of Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians is "regrettable" to Western military officials, it is tragic to the families of those killed. Moreover, civilian deaths and the destruction of property and livestock do little to endear villagers to the Western troops responsible for those deaths and damage. The death and destruction remain long after the insurgents are dead and soldiers and Marines are gone. Western officials say the civilian casualties cannot be helped when enemy insurgents hide among civilians and ambush troops. But is it necessary to launch a determined military assault on a village because some insurgents are holed up there, or launch an air strike to destroy a car or a handful of men lurking suspiciously beside a road? To the military it is. That is their job. They are trained to assault villages and drop bombs. They are not police. They have artillery, tanks, and aircraft. When a village is bombarded and assaulted by soldiers and Marines, it is near certain that civilians will be harmed and killed and property will be damaged. The Taliban know this. Indeed, they count on it.

In regard to the mistaken air attack, a NATO official stated that "a group of suspected insurgents driving SUVs, believed to be en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit was engaged by an airborne weapons team." What is disturbing is that there were no Afghan forces operating in the area. Neither was their any record of Afghan soldiers requesting an air attack. Dutch soldiers responsible for the area denied requesting air support. If an air strike had not been called for and there were no reports of Afghan insurgents in the area, let alone insurgents driving SUVs, why would the aircraft take it upon themselves to attack two vehicles driving down a road? Who, besides the pilots, suspected that the occupants of the vehicles were insurgents and believed they were on their way to attack NATO forces?

Despite using technology and adopting measures to limit civilian casualties and property damage, civilians are still dying and property is still being destroyed. Once a village is surrounded, the insurgents have nowhere to go. It becomes a matter of ferreting them out; a task better suited the Army or even the police than the Air Force. If it is a case where only a small number of insurgents are suspected of holding out in a village, or planting a bomb, air strikes should not be needed. Air strikes and machine guns may be the surest and safest way to attack a target, but if one wants to win the hearts and minds of the locals, "hurling lead" and dropping bombs on villages and cars is probably not the best way. Bombs and missiles cannot see inside houses or know who or what is in them. Neither can the see inside vehicles or know where they are going. Less impersonal methods may take more time and entail higher risks, but the pay off would be better in the long run.

War is a violent business. People get killed and property gets destroyed. When fighting takes place amidst civilians, it is inevitable that civilians will be killed and injured. Nevertheless, we should give them a chance. Civilians can find refuge from small arms fire. If all else fails, they can come out with their hands up. You cannot surrender to missiles and you cannot hide from bombs.

The Department of Homeland Security and its Guns

It was reported this morning that according to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, General Richard Skinner, 289 handguns, shotguns, and automatic rifles belonging to the Department had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008. The 289 weapons included those left by agents in restrooms, bowling alleys, and fast food restaurants. Some weapons were stolen after they were left in truck beds. Others were lost after the agents left their weapons on their vehicle bumpers as they drove away. In a report, the DHS concluded the obvious when it wrote laconically that the department "through its components did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms."

According to its web site, the Department of Homeland Security's "overriding and urgent mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve its freedoms." One would think that a key to achieving its mission would be to secure its firearms. Nevertheless, the department and its agents didn't fail. It was the "components" that failed. Even then, its "components" did not screw up by losing or misplacing their weapons, they simply performed "inadequately."

Agents and officers are not "components." They are men and women hired and trained to protect us us. An agent leaving his weapon in a restroom or unattended in the bed of his truck is not a component performing its task inadequately, it is an agent demonstrating negligence of the highest order. As someone who was in the Army, it is near incomprehensible to me how someone officially charged with a weapon can misplace it or leave it somewhere. In the Army, if a weapon was lost or misplaced, the repercussions of that incident would be felt all the way up the chain of command to the battalion commander and perhaps beyond. Even an unattended weapon was a grave offense.

We are not talking about the local constabulary. We are talking of trained federal law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not Mayberry. If agent Fife leaves his weapon in a restroom or on the bumper of his truck, he is not to be chuckled at or chided. He should be fired. Moreover, Sheriff Taylor should have to explain himself as well. The loss of 289 weapons indicates a more systemic problem than simply a hand full of poorly trained or negligent officers. At some point, someone has to take responsibility, and it should be the ones responsible for hiring, training, and setting rules for agents. A bland statement in a report issued by an office listing disciplinary actions taken simply serves to minimize the gravity of an issue. A simple recommendation that "tighter rules" by adopted may also be reassuring, but unless someone is held accountable and made responsible, it is likely that bureaucratic inertia and indifference will continue. A professional law enforcement agency, let alone a federal law enforcement agency, should not need tighter rules concerning keeping and storing firearms. Common sense should be enough. A rule against leaving weapons in restrooms and bowling alleys should be an embarrassment.

Blaming components and rules has become common in explaining errors and oversights. It allows blame to be assigned impersonally. But "components" are people. Rules are created by people. They are applied by people and they are followed by people. Moreover, those people are trained to create, apply, and follow those rules. If a system or rule fails or errs, it is not enough to simply reexamine the rules. Systems and rules do not fail on their own. They need help. If a "component" fails, it should be replaced. If enough components fail, the system is flawed and should be overhauled. The human element in creating systems and implementing rules should never be overlooked. Components and rules don't lose shotguns and leave side arms in lavatories. People do.

If tighter rules and better training are needed to keep federal agents from leaving their weapons on truck bumpers or from being left behind in rest rooms, fast food restaurants, and bowling alleys, God help us all.

Knee-Jerkers and Flip Floppers.

"As the Democrat's disregard voters' concerns and attempt to isolate Americans with divisive and partisan rhetoric, we recommend you stay on offense." So reads a memo from the NRSC communications director, Brian Walsh, suggesting campaign strategy for GOP candidates in the fall elections. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a memo of their own in which they urged Democratic candidates to "frame their opponents early - and drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives." Both parties are laboring to prepare "talking points" for their respective candidates. "Do you believe the $787 billion 'stimulus' bill worked?" is a question suggested to GOP candidates. The Democratic memo provided tips to create unrest in GOP camps. It recommends that Democratic candidates "trap" their GOP opponents into committing themselves on "polarizing issues" and using those statements to put their opponents in a corner. This trap would incite conflict and turmoil in the opponents camp and thereby fragment support for the candidate. Ideally, a dreaded "flip-flop" could be produced by provoking a statement conflicting with an earlier position taken by the candidate. Should a "flip-flop" be produced, it should be pounced on immediately and well circulated. The Republicans in turn, are counseled to paint their Democratic opponents as purveyors of the "knee-jerk politics that have kept Washington trapped in political gridlock for decades." The apparatchiks of both parties are staying busy propping up their candidates, making strategy, preparing "talking points", and working to undermine opponents.

It would seem that for many party professionals, it is not enough to nominate good candidates and put forward policies and positions for public consideration. The primary purpose of politics is to win. The preferred method is to traduce. Once victory is in hand, the victors can get on about implementing their agenda. "Partisan parlor games" are to be denounced, yet candidates are urged to "stay on offense" and "trap" their opponents. Certainly, an eye must be kept out for public disenchantment and an ear must be kept open to public opinion. Steps have to be taken to reassure the public that they are involved and have a say in policy. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, parties are less concerned with the thoughts and opinions of the voter than they are in his vote. They are willing to go to great depths to get that vote.

The public is increasingly viewed as an accomplice to the political ambitions of a party, rather than a partner. The voter is to be lured, tricked, enticed, and cajoled. Better politicians might try to persuade. Very few will listen. Like a pushy car salesman, the parties want to sell the public a car. But they are less interested in what the customer is looking to buy, than what they want to sell. No one runs for office to follow. They run to lead, whether or not it is to a place the public wants to go. As the line between policy and tactics becomes ever more blurred, discourse becomes replaced by slogans and posturing. The public is at risk of becoming little more than a prize to be won or lost in a political contest.

If the parties succeed in their campaign strategy, in the upcoming elections the voters will have to choose, not between Republicans and Democrats, nor between liberals and conservatives. They will have to choose between knee-jerkers and flip floppers. However, in a nation where the highest ranked TV show is Dancing with the Stars, perhaps the parties don't bear all the blame.

The Problem With Whites.

Yesterday, the Democratic candidate for governor in Texas, Farouk Shami, stated that "Hispanic labor is essential to the Texas economy." To the extent Texas relies upon cheap labor, he is right. Nevertheless, given the contentious nature of debate over immigration, particularly in a state like Texas, perhaps that was not a statement someone running for governor of Texas should make. It is true that without immigrant labor, illegal immigrant labor in particular, many products and services would become more expensive. It is not just that business parks, homeowners and golf courses would have to pay more to keep their lawns manicured. It would affect all Texans. For example, it would cost the state more money to maintain roads if the companies they contracted with could not rely on immigrants (legal and otherwise) to pour asphalt and lay drainage pipe in the blistering Texas sun for minimal wages.

It is argued that many homes and apartment complexes might not be built if paying minimal wages to the construction workers could not be relied upon. Those that would be built would require using cheaper material in the absence of cheap labor. (Often, cheaper materials are used even in the presence of cheap labor). Years ago, when I worked construction and built houses, there was an abundance of white workers to be found. This was because the pay was good. Once some companies decided to increase profits by lowering costs, not only were cheaper materials sought, but cheaper labor as well. Once one company did so, the other companies were obliged to do so to stay competitive. It was not long until cheap material and immigrant labor were found at nearly every building site. Many workers making $10 to $15 an hour were replaced my immigrants making $5. The houses built were of inferior quality with inferior material. Homeowners were able to acquire a house cheap, but that was because it was a cheap house. Nearly every step taken to reduce the costs of those houses became apparent to the homeowner in a few years. The houses may have been affordable, but they were not very good.

Many roads would not be built or paved without cheap labor. Even the state relies upon the cheap labor supplied by contractors who use immigrants. Immigrant labor, illegal or otherwise, is cheap because it is abundant. If a laborer refuses a job because he feels the pay is insufficient, another will gladly take it. And therein lies the problem. Many whites, and others for that matter, will not pour asphalt, mow golf courses, build houses, or generally do any other laborious or unpleasant task for the wages that are usually offered. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants will. A business that needs, or wants cheap labor can find it. There is absolutely no incentive to pay workers more. Wages stay low. Immigrants stay employed. Products and services stay affordable. Everyone wins. Well, not everyone.

The downward pressure immigration puts on wages may keep prices low, but it also keeps wages low. It also keeps people unemployed and poor that would not be so otherwise. When some whites refuse a job, objecting to the paltry wages they are being offered, they are often characterized as haughty, lazy, or pampered. To the people who object at being asked to pour asphalt, work construction, or toil in factories for near poverty wages, an employer can simply mention that if they are unwilling to do the work for the wages offered, he can easily find someone who will. The person he will find will likely be an immigrant. It is not unlikely the immigrant he finds will be an illegal immigrant.

Against the benefit to the economy that cheap labor offers is set the unemployment and poverty caused by that cheap labor. "Cheap labor" is simply another way of saying low wages. One benefit of cheap labor is cheap products and cheap services. The other benefit is higher profits. There would seem to be a cycle at work. Cheap pay leads to low income. Low income demands cheap products and services. In order to produce cheap products and provide cheap services, one must pay low wages. Competition serves to keep the cycle going.

If many whites will not accept wearisome and unpleasant jobs under the wages and conditions offered, it is likely because they are just not desperate enough. It was the desperation of the characters in the novels of Dickens that led them to lives toiling at the miserable jobs under the horrible conditions for the paltry wages that they did. It is the desperation of immigrants that lead them to accept the jobs and wages they do. As a very successful business owner, Shami is no doubt familiar with how demanding and selfish workers can be. Especially the white ones.

Shami continued his blundering when he stated that "You don't find white people who are willing to work in factories." Curiously, back in the day when people could earn good money working in factories you could find many whites working in them and many more who wanted to. Maybe many white workers just haven't become desperate enough or are too slow in abandoning their hopes and sense of pride to take difficult and menial jobs at the wages offered. Maybe when they become desperate enough and their pride is broken they will once again be competitive. Until then, white workers will be scorned by "business men" like Shami for their haughty and pampered ways.

Many suffer when wages are kept low, not just the workers. Households suffer when they struggle to meet their needs. Consumers suffer because the quality of products and services decline. Business suffers because their markets are truncated. Communities suffer because their residents frequently require more services than they can pay for. But businessmen like Shami not only thrive, they get rich. It is not good policy to chastise a large sector of the electorate for wanting more for their labor. It may be good business to keep costs down and wages low, but unless the benefits of good business are spread around, it is not really good business at all. Certainly not for workers. Moreover, it is bad politics.

It is not that Americans, white or otherwise, are lazy or effete. It is not difficult to find Americans willing to work in factories, pave roads or shingle roofs. But it is difficult to find Americans willing to do those things for $5.00 an hour. That is the problem.

Fighting Obesity With the Government's Help.

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?

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 Weight of Gold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound Fiscal Advice

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

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

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

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

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

Show Trial

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

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

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

The Allure of Trains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News from Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Trials for the Guilty

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

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

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

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

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

This Year Will Be Different

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

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

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