Trouble in Kyrgyzstan

Turmoil in Kyrgyzstan is growing. It was reported today that opposition forces have seized power. The U.S. is concerned. It has a major military base there that is important to the wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unrest in Kyrgyzstan threatens U.S. interests in the region. Apart from its convenient location and usefulness to U.S. war efforts, why should the U.S. be concerned with Kyrgyzstan? What are U.S. interests there? Many will hear about the trouble in Kyrgyzstan, some might even read about it. How many know where it is? Why should a plumber in Houston care what happens in Kyrgyzstan?

Kyrgyzstan has a population roughly 1/5th that of Texas. Its size is roughly 1/5 that of Texas as well. Kyrgyzstan's GDP is less than 1/10th that of Texas. Still, Kyrgyzstan is vital to the U.S. It does not have nuclear weapons even though its neighbors do. Still, Kyrgyzstan is important to the U.S. The loss of its support would hobble U.S. military activities in the region, but would not threaten them. Perhaps one reason for the concern is that it would be one less place on the map where the Pentagon can pin an American flag, and it is important for a U.S. flag to be pinned there.

Kyrgyzstan may be important to the U.S., but the importance of the U.S. to Kyrgyzstan is not so obvious. Despite frequent statements by the U.S. that its only goal in the region is to fight terrorism and advance the cause of democracy, its actions often bely its words. Certainly lip service is paid to "democratically" elected leaders, but in reality, a strong man will do in a pinch, as long as he is our strong man.

The U.S. hydra is such that even a small, landlocked nation of 5 1/2 million in central Asia finds itself entangled in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. claims it is obligated to involve itself in the affairs of nations and people across the globe. But when it comes down to it, we intervene because we can. American involvement is usually heralded as noble and self sacrificing. At times, U.S. interests coincide with regional interests, at least those whose interests we intervene to support. Less often, it is announced that the intervention was done in our interests. But sometimes U.S. interests consist of little more than maintaining its interests. When U.S. interests conflict with the interests and desires of other governments and people, animosity towards the U.S. can be counted on.

If the U.S. throws its lot in with the government in Kyrgyzstan and the uprising is successful, the new government will resent the U.S. for supporting its enemies. If the government prevails, the defeated rebels will resent the U.S. for the aid it provided to the government and we will have earned their enmity. The opposition is already accusing the U.S. of abetting the government. Perhaps even a new terrorist network will take root. If the U.S. supports the opposition and the opposition fails, there will be another nation hostile to the U.S. and its interests in the region.

When the U.S. looks at a map of the world, it sees opportunity and danger. From one pole to the other, there is nothing, no one, and no place outside the interest and grasp of the U.S. Because of this, the U.S. will always find new causes and with them, new foes and enemies. Every once in a while, the U.S. should reflect on what is truly in its interests and what isn't. And, when we identify our true interests, we should mind them and leave the interests of other nations to other nations.

Swiss soldiers are not dying in Afghanistan. Swedish soldiers are not dying in Iraq. U.S. soldiers are dying there. The reason U.S. soldiers are dying there is that it was deemed to be in the interests of the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This decision was arrived at because everything touches on U.S interests, whether in Africa, Asia, or Central America. It would be naive to accept the argument that we invaded two counties and overthrew their governments because of a terrorist attack. That was only one factor. The other, and larger factor, was that it was felt that it would be a good opportunity to establish two new democracies in the region and further expand our interests and opportunities. And we all know how well that is turning out.

Let us hope that for every one's sake, the U.S. does not try to bring democracy to Kyrgyzstan. Military bases are a poor reason to involve oneself in a foreign country's internal affairs. It certainly in is the U.S.'s interest to have a pro western government in Kyrgyzstan. The question remains whether it is in Kyrgyzstan's interest. That question is not for the U.S. to decide. The U.S. says it wants the conflict to end peacefully. The question is whose peace? A peace favorable of the U.S. interests? Or a peace hostile to them? To imply the U.S. has no stake in the conflict is dishonest. The global nature of U.S. interests guarantees that the U.S. will have a stake in almost every conflict.

As inconvenient as the loss of military bases might be to the U.S., it is a problem more easily overcome by the U.S. than having a new antagonist in the region.

Badu's "Art".

Erykah Badu's recent spectacle has caused no small amount of controversy. Her nude demonstration at Dealey Plaza in Dallas has been defended by many as art. It has been criticized by others as an offensive disturbance. I am inclined to agree with the latter.

Years ago as an undergraduate I took a course on English literature. The lessons I learned in that course are just as relevant to art as they are to literature. There are two things to consider when assessing a work of art: the message of the artist and the expression of that message. Great works of art are concerned with timeless and profound insights into human nature and existence. Love, hate, hope, and despair, for example, are all timeless and universal human emotions. They are subjects every person has access to and can relate to, not just ancient Romans or French aristocracy. All men have felt hate and love. All have felt hope and despair. They are subjects that transcend time and place. Moreover, they are subjects that cannot be exhausted. They have always existed and they always will exist. They will always be experienced in new and subtle ways. A good artist, whether a sculptor, painter, poet, etc., brings a new exploration of the subject and so provides the viewer a new insight. Each artist and each new piece brings a new perspective.

The expression of the subject should be in congruity to the gravity of the subject. Great subjects require great expressions. It matters not whether the expression is in the form of a sculpture, a play, or a painting. It doesn't matter whether the expression is abstract, surreal, modern or classic. It doesn't matter whether the artist approves or disapproves of what he is expressing, whether it is love or hate, fear or hope. Whatever the subject, the expression must fit the subject. Christ's Crucifixion for example, (whether one accepts it or not) is a profound subject that deals with God's relation to man and man's salvation. Great subjects demand great expression. The Sistine Chapel is a work of art. The expression is wholly congruous with the subject. Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is a crude and inarticulate expression of a profound subject. Piss Christ is not a work of art. It is a clumsy attempt to assault the viewer, not provide insight.

Secondly, great art requires great talent. Rodin and Rubens had very different styles, but they both had great talent. Each was able to express universal themes in a style and manner appropriate to the subject. There is congruity between between the subject and the expression of that subject. They were both able to express a subject in a deep and thoughtful way because they both had talent and insight enough to articulate the subject. One can witness the emotions of the subjects in Rubens' Descent from the Cross. One can see, and almost feel the hope, the despair, and determination of the disciples as they take Christ's dead body down and prepare the shroud. Dostoevsky offers deep insight to human motivation and emotion, human strength and weakness. He articulates his characters, their actions and their emotions in a manner accessible and recognizable to the reader, whether they are 19th century Russians or not. The reader has access to these feelings and motivations and so can enter the work and participate in it. In great art, the artist invites the viewer into the work to experience it and to participate in it because the artist has the talent to do so.

Because each viewer is different, each takes away a different experience. Yet they can all identify the experience because they all share it. They all share it because they are all human. Everyone has felt fear. Everyone has felt despair. Every one has felt love and joy. Everyone has experienced beauty. A great artist invites reflection, provokes thought and provides insight into the experience. If the artist has done his job, each viewer will take away new insight into themselves and the world. A good artist can express her subject because her talent allows her to explore and articulate it in such a way that she can bring out its nuance and complexity. Because each artist is different, each brings a new perspective. Great subjects can never be exhausted because there will always be new artists with new insights and new perspectives. As importantly, there will always be new viewers.

There has long been a trend in modern art where the artist's feelings and emotions have become more important than the subject or the viewers. The viewer simply constitutes an audience for the artist's sentiments. The subject is the artist's platform. The work is usually an expression of how the artist feels about a certain subject. It is not a universal or timeless insight. It is a personal and peculiar one only shared by those with similar sentiments. An artist's rage against a contemporary convention is not a universal theme. A sculptor's expression of a government's policy is not a timeless one and will have little relevance to those in the future. If one does not share the artist's peculiar sentiments or views, the work has little interest. If one does not approve or is offended by of the depiction or the subject, it is not important because the artist does not care about the viewer. The artist is first and foremost concerned with himself and his feelings. Too often the only thing many modern "artists" demand of their viewers is a reaction. A good artist wants to give insight into the subject. He wants to engage the viewer and inspire him. He certainly doesn't want to offend him. The viewer may be offended, but that is not the artist's intent. The mediocre artist simply wants the viewer's attention. The artist wants to demonstrate her feelings on the subject or depict something of interest to the author and not necessarily the viewer. If the viewer shares the sentiment of the author, so much the better. If not, there are always other viewers. There is no attempt to provoke insight. The viewer is more of a target than an audience. The bad artist often simply wants to mug the viewer.

Badu's spectacle was not art. It was an act of petulance and anger born of frustration. While it was an attempt (and an successful one by all accounts) to provoke people, it was the attempt of a child to provoke her parents. She wanted to offend people, not inspire them. She wanted attention in the same way a disgruntled child wants attention from her parents. Because Badu had little, if any talent, the only way she could express herself was by attempting to shock and provoke her audience. To try and create art without talent or insight is like trying to write a novel with poor vocabulary and little imagination. The subject must be deformed to fit its creator. Badu could not express herself through creating a work of art, so she took her clothes off and walked through Dealey Plaza. She could not offer any insight to the viewers, so she attempted to mug them.

Great art will produce wonder, reflection and awe. Good art will will intrigue and captivate. Mediocre art will distract. Poor art will wind up in the attic or in rummage sales and thrift shops. As for Badu, she will soon be forgotten.

Let's Start a War

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Bob Herbert writes of the economic ills still plaguing that nation. Unemployment is still high and the economy is still struggling. In his column, Herbert makes the astounding claim that government efforts to address the economy so far have been "small-bore efforts that will accomplish little." He is half right. Government efforts to stimulate the economy have had few results. But he is very wrong to characterize government efforts to stimulate the economy so far as "small bore". Well over $1 trillion has been spent. Granted, a trillion dollars is not what it used to be. But to characterize it as "small bore" is quite a stretch.

Herbert trots out the standard justification of massive government spending by using the New Deal as an example of the efficacy of massive government spending to stimulate the economy. It has long been argued that it was government spending that brought the nation out of the Great Depression. This argument has been eroding for some time. Many economists have come to conclude that what ended the Great Depression was not the New Deal, but WWII. It was the war that cranked up production in the U.S. It was the war that took millions of men and women off the street and put them to work in factories and fighting the Germans and the Japanese.

After well more than $1 trillion has been spent to stimulate the economy, the economy is still foundering. According to Herbert and many others, $1 trillion is "small bore." A real solution would require much more to be spent. "Real" job bills are needed, not the feeble ones so far enacted by Obama and Congress. Hebert asserts that the solution to the economic problems hounding the U.S. is more jobs. There is no argument that he is correct. The problem is how do we create real jobs? To Herbert and other liberals, the way to create jobs is through government "stimulation". If spending $1 trillion was not enough to stimulate the economy, the solution must be to spend a trillion more.

Maybe it is time that the government finds a new strategy. Perhaps it should try getting out of the way by lowering taxes and reducing regulations. The entrepreneurial nature of the American public has never failed in the past. Certainly the motivation and skills are there for Americans to get to work and make money. The government should encourage them, not hobble them with taxes, regulations and mandatory health care.

There is an old saying. If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. Massive government spending and increasing regulatory encroachment have failed to improve the economy, but the government keeps on digging. It cannot be helped. It is the government's nature to dig.

If the administration truly wants to follow FDR's example and stimulate the economy, it should stop dithering with health care and stimulus packages. It should declare war on China. Not only would a real war give the economy a boost and dramatically reduce unemployment, it would give us the opportunity to take down one of our chief economic rivals. Perhaps we could even make a detour and invade Iran as well. It would be a win win situation. World war worked for FDR. It can work for Obama.

Peace Talks

It was reported yesterday that Arab leaders agreed to move forward on Middle East peace talks over the objections of Libya and Syria. The agreement came in the face of continued Israeli expansion in Jerusalem. Said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa "If we withdraw...what will be the Arab stance after that?" Indeed. There is little, if anything, Arabs can do about Israel. They cannot challenge Israel militarily and they have no economic leverage. World opinion matters little to Israel so long as they have support from the U.S. What choice do Arab leaders really have but to continue talking? Petulance has gotten them nowhere.

Even still, not all Arab leaders support the talks. Syrian President Bashar Assad pressured Palestinians not to enter in to peace talks with Israel. Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi threatened to withdraw Libyan support from the 2002 peace initiative agreed to by Arab leaders in Beirut. Despite protests to the talks, many Arabs support them, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinians have the most to lose from not talking. Many Arab leader across the region are taking significant political risks to pursue the talks. The question remains whether, and to what extent, Israel is willing to help them.

Provocative acts on the part of Israel, like the recent moves to expand Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, make it more difficult for Arab leaders to pursue peace talks. Many Arab leaders risk danger at home by alienating hard line elements to enter into talks with Israel. Israel should return the favor. If Palestinian President Abbas and the Arab League are willing to rebuff threats and stand up to hard line elements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, it is only fair that Israel take risks by standing up to hard line elements in their own community. Militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are obstacles to peace. So are Israeli settlers.

The Palestinians have been losing land, lives, property and dignity for a long time. It will not be enough for Israel to simply stop taking. They will need to start giving, and not just bits and pieces of land. They will need to give respect as well. Condescending to give up some small parcels of territory and limited control will do little to ease animosity toward Israel, especially since Israel retains control over the borders, restricts traffic and trade, and reserves the prerogative of entering those territories if and when it deems necessary. Stopping the expansion of settlements, reigning in settlers, and easing restrictions and control over Palestinian territory would make it easier for Arab leaders to sit down and talk with Israel. The fact that Israel often refuses to do so casts doubt on its willingness, and perhaps even its ability to negotiate in good faith.

If there is to be real peace, it will take more than for Israel to simply take its boot off the throats of the Palestinians. It will have to help them up and show them respect as well. It is in Israel's interest to assist Palestinians. A prosperous and vibrant Palestine would be an asset to Israel if for no other reason than such a Palestine would have much to lose in a conflict with Israel and much to gain by peace. If Israel is serious about peace and not simply seeking to end violence and crush resistance, they should make it worthwhile for the Palestinians. They should give the Palestinians enough for them to have hope. Not just for existence, but for prosperity and dignity. Only a prosperous and proud Palestine would have enough to lose for Palestinians to turn their backs on violence and embrace peace. If Israel insists on playing the role of suzerain, violence and protest will only continue.

Loss of Faith

Yesterday, Vice President Biden spoke at a fundraiser in Dallas. In his speech, Biden lamented the sagging confidence of the American public in the efficacy of federal government. "I did not anticipate the degree of cynicism that had been reached by the American public" he said, as if his administration bore no fault. Biden went on to blame former President Bush. He claimed that the "greatest damage the Bush administration did - more damaging than the recession, their foreign policy - was the loss of faith the American people had in their government to be able to deliver on anything." That loss of faith has proven frustrating to the administration in its attempt to remake American society. The administration is relying on that trust but they are having a hard time earning it. They need every bit of it they can get their hands on if they are to achieve their ambitions.

Biden effused on how he didn't run for office just to administer the federal government. "I came to make a difference" he said. The administration is not concerned simply with managing the nation's affairs, they want to change America. Putting the cart before the horse, Biden asserted that "If we take care of the next generation, we'll win the next election" As if the American people needed government to take care of them. It is not readily apparent how the administration's policies will affect the future. There is at least one election before the future is here. Nor is it apparent how saddling the future generations with a mountain of debt can be understood as taking care of them. Biden's statement was a reflection of many liberals' desire to be needed by the people. Many liberals live in fear that the people might grow up someday and no longer need them. They want to keep the public at home where they can keep an eye on them and take care of them. Liberals need the public to want the government to take care of them if they are to succeed. They need to be needed.

Speaking with Vice President Biden was Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Durbin spoke with near rapture of the recent passage of of the administration's health care overhaul. "This is the biggest thing I've ever been involved in in my political life. It's new day." Durbin's remark reflects the administration's motives better than Biden's. They are less concerned about the welfare of future generations than they are in carving their names in history.

If the public has lost faith in the efficacy of government, it is not the Republicans' fault. Nor is it the Democrats' fault. It is both their faults. The federal government has run rough shod over the public in recent years. Each party has come to view victory as licence. While Bush often proved indifferent to public opinion, particularly in regard to foreign policy, the Obama administration has proved near contemptuous. The current administration viewed its impressive electoral victory in 2008 as an enthusiastic endorsement of its ambitions. The growing public unease at the administration's policies and the hardening opposition to its agenda suggest that, if there was a genuine endorsement of its policies rather than a simple desire for change and a frustration with Republicans, the public is coming to weary of it. Obama's sagging approval ratings and the optimism of Republicans concerning the Fall elections would seem to indicate that the bloom is off the rose for Obama.

At the moment, the administration is almost giddy over their victory on health care. The narrowness of that victory and the bitter contest that preceded it was not simple cynicism on the part of the public. It was genuine disagreement and distaste for the ambitions of government. Obama and the Democrats' heavy hand and strident rhetoric in pushing legislation through Congress has done more to embitter the electorate than Bush's policies. Biden has evidently forgotten the enthusiasm with which the electorate embraced Obama's election and the optimism it engendered as well as the message of hope that they ran on. If that optimism and hope are now spent, it is not the fault of Republicans. It certainly is not Bush's fault. It is the administration's fault.

It was Obama that tried to remake America. It was Obama who strove to create one new massive program after another. If there is a frustration on the part of the public as to the ability of government to right all wrongs and fix every problem, it is the government's fault for suggesting that it could right all wrongs and fix every problem. Reality is not as pliable as politicians would have us believe. The cynicism of the American public is the result of its realization that politics is politics and that it has fallen for a pitch yet another time.

In the face of waning public support for health care and increasing unease, the administration only increased its efforts to get its legislation passed. They didn't want the public to catch up. They did not want to wait for the fall elections to see if the electorate supported their efforts. Their reliance on bribes and procedural maneuvers to get their health care legislation through Congress was the very height of Washington politics and deal making. The massive spending by the Obama administration has cast a pall over Washington and the nation in regard to the nation's future and undermined the optimism of the American public. Its ambitions have made the public uneasy. Its stumbling in regard to the economy has done little, if anything, to restore confidence.

If you take the appeal and charisma of Obama out of the equation, it is likely the electorate would be downright hostile to government and its policies. It is Obama that is keeping the whole enterprise afloat. A president with less appeal than Obama would be hunkered in the White House by now, not out making speeches and giving interviews. The Democrats can blame the Republicans for the growing distaste for government, but unless they reevaluate their strategies and policies, there is little chance the public is going to change its opinion. If the Democrats insist on trying to change society and stiff arming the Republicans, the animosity in Washington will continue to grow and that animosity will spill over into the electorate. Confidence in government will continue to decline.

The Republicans are not to blame for the growing decline of faith in Washington. Washington is. Time and again, Washington over reaches in its ambitions. Time and again, Washington avows it will achieve some great thing. Rarely are great things be achieved. Washington's greatest achievements in the last 100 years were winning WWII and putting a man on the moon. Other than that, it has largely been a failure. When government fails to realize its goals often enough, the public will start to lose faith. If health care reform fails to pan out as promised, yet more faith will be lost. In that case, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

Americans don't always want, or need big things from government. Sometimes it is enough if the government would just leave the them alone. But there is no glory in that. The government doesn't want to leave the people alone. Like a doting parent, government constantly wants to help and be appreciated and so is constantly interfering and seeking to gain attention. It is quick to offer help but often inept at delivering it. What help it does provide always comes at a cost. The cynicism of the American people is not manufactured, it is earned. If Washington wants the faith and trust of the American public, it will have to work for it. And, if it achieves it, it will have to keep it.

It's Only Money

It was reported this morning that Social Security will pay out more money than it takes in this year. This was not expected to happen until 2016. This was attributed largely to the current recession. Due to the high unemployment rate, fewer people are paying into the system. Also due to the recession, more people are applying for benefits.

Nevertheless, the news will have no effect on benefits, at least for this year. The higher payouts and decreased revenue were not unexpected. People can rely on receiving their checks. At least for 2010. The program is not expected to deplete its funds until 2037. The Social Security Administration will supply its own forecast later this year. It is expected that the grim predictions will be verified. Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan warned that "unless we get an immediate and sharp recovery, the revenues of the trust fund will be tracking lower for a number of years."

We needn't preoccupy ourselves over the dour news. President Obama is still on the job. Most agree that the economy will sooner or later pick up. It always does. And, if we are to take the administration's word, that recovery will be soon and it will be spectacular. It is just a question of when. In the mean time we shouldn't worry ourselves. Why should we? Billions have been spent on improving the economy. Nearly a billion more is going to be spent on health care. Things are going to be just fine, even if another billion has to be spent. Once people calm down and realize things aren't so bad, they will be out spending money. Despite the surging national debt and struggling economy, President Obama is not worried, so neither should we be. In any event, it's only money.

Even if the economy doesn't recover, people should not be concerned. The melt down will not occur for years. Obama will be long gone and many of us will be dead before the worst comes to pass. At least we have affordable health care to cushion our slow decline. That should keep people content for a while. As for Obama, if he has hopes of getting his image carved into Mount Rushmore, he may be in for dissapointment. It will be some time before his presidency is evaluated by history. But, judging from the numbers, his prospects at this point do not look good.

Can We Get a Break?

The ink has barely dried on the mammoth new health care bill and many are urging Obama to address the still struggling economy. Despite the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last year, the economy is still foundering. The National Urban League is calling on Obama to address high unemployment in minority communities. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League asserted that, now that health care reform has passed, "it's time for a strong jobs bill." As it turns out, $787 billion was not sufficient to stimulate the economy enough to affect minority communities. Even the mammoth new health care law will not be enough to close the racial gap in unemployment according to the League: a fine time to point that out. Neither will the $38 billion jobs bill Obama signed Thursday be enough.

The National Urban League has proposed that $150 billion be spent for jobs creation through offering grants to cities and states. The money would be allocated on the basis of local unemployment rates. The goal is the creation of 3 million jobs. At $50,000 a job, it seems like a bargain. It is also proposed that an additional $5 billion to $7 billion be spent to hire 5 million teens from urban areas with high unemployment rates: that's $5,000 or more a teen. If those teens are put on the federal pay roll, the cost will go up significantly since they will have to be paid. The League is calling for a "jobs surge." Those jobs naturally would come with health care benefits. And not just any old package of health benefits, but the same health benefits available to federal employees. At the top of the list is the League's demand is that "a new federal agency be created to guarantee a job to every person seeking work to improve public works projects." A year ago, I would have been surprised if someone demanded a new federal agency dedicated to providing a job to every one who sought one. After last week, I am no longer so. If every American has a right to health care, it is not a stretch to assert that every American has a right to a job.

The administration's willingness to shovel out money as a solution to every problem is creating a new culture of entitlement. Groups and agencies are lining up to get their share of government largess. It is felt that every social, ethnic, and economic disparity can be remedied through the right amount of money and the right regulations. Government commitment is now measured in billions. The League believes that since the government has seen fit to spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out the insurance and auto industries, it is only meet that the government spend billions to create jobs in minority communities. They have a point. Why shouldn't everyone be allowed to drink from the river of money flowing from Washington?

If entrepreneurship was something that could be bought, many, if not all of our economic problems would be solved in short order. It is starting to seem as though Washington exists in a parallel universe where money is limitless. A place where human nature does not exist and the laws of economics do not apply. Perhaps, worst of all, it is a universe in which there is nothing beyond the reach of government and no problem or disparity that cannot be corrected through government spending and manipulation. After spending nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy over the last year, the economy is still struggling. Perhaps spending $150 billion more as the Urban League suggests will be the thing to finally put the economy over the top.

The New Machine

Cheers rang out in Washington and across the country yesterday as Congress finally passed the health care reform bill after a year of bitter struggle. Obama will soon sign the bill into law. They have made their mark on history. Generations to come will look back on this moment, it is hoped, with admiration. Liberals, frustrated that they could not have been there for the New Deal or the March on Selma will proudly, and no doubt tediously, tell their grand kids that they were here for this. A great step was taken forward, at least as those who championed the bill assert. Government has been further ensconced as part of the nation's fabric. Tens of millions will be helped Obama said proudly. Perhaps. But billions will be spent.

Many on the left are downright giddy. They have a brand new tool with which to manipulate society. However what is lost amidst their glee is the realization that the government will not always be in their control. Sooner or later conservatives will get their hands on Washington and with it all the tools and levers liberals have worked so hard to put in place. They will use those tools and levers to very different purposes than liberals will like. Then it will be their turn to gnash their teeth and lament the danger and reach of big government.

The machine that was created yesterday belongs to the government, not to democrats and liberals. It will do what the government wants, not what democrats and liberals want. Those who welcome the new legislation with such satisfaction should be preparing for the day when the machine no longer belongs to them. That day could be coming as soon as this Fall. The time will come when liberals no longer embrace government but struggle against it. Then they will truly experience the monster they are working so hard to create. A key to evaluating policies and programs is to envision what your opponents would do with them if they in were charge. If that prospect is one that you find disturbing, you should reevaluate your support of that program or policy because, sooner or later, your opponents will be in charge.

In any event, millions of Americans will now be beholden to the federal government for their health care. That is just fine with Obama and Pelosi. The people didn't win yesterday. The government did.

That's a Relief.

By most accounts, Obama's health care plan will soon become law. When it does, I will breath a sigh of relief. As will many I am sure. Now, if I get sick waiting in line at the unemployment office for the new job Obama promised me, I can just mosey on down to the clinic and get taken care of. Then maybe I will stroll on over to the dealership to get me one of those cars Obama said he'd help me get awhile back. With the steps he has taken to improve the environment, it should be a beautiful day. No one will beat me up or call me names along the way because, if they do, they will get into big trouble. If I have enough time, I will look at new houses. Obama said he would help me with the mortgage.

With Obama and the democrats in Washington, it will not be long until all my wishes come true. Peace on Earth, a job, a house, health care, a car: it is as if every day is Christmas. Obama is turning out to be the greatest, kindest, and most beneficent president the United States has ever had. He has even won the Nobel Peace Prize. He still has at least two more years. Who knows what Obama will get me next? Maybe he can get me a girlfriend. Whatever it is, I can hardly wait.

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.