Obama in the Polls

In the latest poll by Ramussen, 29% of those polled strongly approve of the job Obama is doing. 39% strongly disapprove. Last year, nearly 68% strongly approved of the job Obama was doing. Only 12% strongly disapproved. Recently, the numbers were even. 46% approved, 46% disapproved. Polls across the board show Obama's numbers have dropped significantly. Most polls show those numbers are not getting any better. Many show they are getting worse. Many democrats are facing uphill fights in the Fall elections. Even long time incumbent Senator Boxer is in trouble in California. The forecast for democrats this fall is not very bright.

By objective standards, Obama has had an extraordinary term so far. Every major effort he has undertaken, from the economy, to the environment, to his most recent triumph over health care has ended in success. In each of these efforts, Obama has claimed to have the public on his side and their interests at heart. So why are his numbers falling?

Obama's sagging numbers are probably due in part to two reasons. First of all, despite his bold promises and impressive spending, things have not improved very much. The modest gains in the economy have been hamstrung by the growing gloom concerning the future. It is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the implications of the mounting national debt. Perhaps a striking improvement in the economy would help to take people's minds off things. But there is little, if any improvement. So the people brood. Secondly, the massive expansion of the federal government is making people apprehensive. Government expansion would not be a bad thing if the government were efficient and responsive. But it is not. More and more of the economy is being swallowed by the government and disappearing into the federal swamp. The bigger government gets, the more people have to venture into the swamp. Most people like to avoid swamps.

Neither have things improved on the global stage. The world is no safer now than when Obama took office. Despite his peace prize, the world is no more peaceful now than it was two years ago. Obama has been unable to do very much to ease international tension or resolve conflicts. Fighting drags on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestinians and Israelis are still dieing, Africans are still starving, and the North Koreans still have an atomic bomb. What is worse, Iran is now two years closer to having a nuclear weapon.

Obama took office promising hope and change. Two years ago it seemed anything was possible. Certainly Obama felt anything was possible. But Obama and his supporters mistook their impressive victory for licence and attempted to remake America and the world. They have overplayed their hand. Along the way they have shifted from giving the people what they felt the people wanted, to giving the people what they felt the people needed. Obama's recent health care victory is a case in point. As the debate dragged on, the people grew more and more disenchanted. As disenchantment grew, Obama worked harder to get his plan passed. It was as if he was in a race against the public. Rarely has anyone ever had to work so hard to give away so much to so many.

The Democrat's flagging numbers should be a sign to Democrats, and Republicans as well, that it is perhaps time to stop telling the American public what it wants and ask them. It is not the job of the government to tell people what they want. It is the job of government to ask the people what they want and help them get it. Government should follow the people, not lead them. But that is a concept of government manifestly unsuited to a man like Obama. Obama sees it as his destiny to lead. His job, as he understands it, is to get the American public to follow him. Obama's sagging poll numbers indicate that the public is losing interest in where Obama is trying to lead them and becoming less and less willing to follow him.

Creep, creep, creep.

Many may have assumed that with the passage of health care reform, the issue was over. If they did, they are mistaken. Arguably, it has just begun. Issues that were pushed aside or avoided to achieve consensus are coming back into the light. Compromises made to ensure passage of the bill are already beginning to fray. Groups that were ignored or asked to hold their tongues in order to smooth passage of the law are speaking up. Said Jim Burroughs, a professor at George Mason University, "If people don't like the outcome [of health care legislation] they have another bite at it... to alter rules so they're more favorable to their policy point of view." Many groups are lining up for another bite at the apple.

The AARP is one of those groups. It is seeking to make sure that seniors receive the discounts that they have been promised. They are also concerned about the new rule that families cover children up until the age of 26 - an issue of concern for many older parents on tight budgets. Abortion rights groups are already at work trying to ensure new rules and regulations are drafted in a way to maximize abortion coverage. Pro life groups are vigilant and ready to intervene to the contrary. Obama's executive order covering federal funding for abortion will not last long. Orders, executive or otherwise, can be rescinded as easily as they can be issued. Drug makers are keeping a close eye on cost controls that were implemented in the new law and are ready to act if necessary. There are many more issues emerging all the time. Gay rights groups are already concerned about what the new plan will mean for them regarding access and consultation in the treatment of their partners. Health care has only just begun to creep its way into American life.

Under the new federal health care plan, health care has officially become a political issue. It is no longer an issue between doctors, patients, and insurers. The government now has to be taken onto account, and with it, lobbyists, activists, and voters. Each new election will bring new pressures and concerns to bear on the issue. One result is that health care will be in a constant state of flux. No government health care policy will ever be able to take into account the complexities of health care, the shifting demographics, or satisfy the needs and wants of everybody. Government will be forever trying to catch up. Every two years there will be a new discussion over health care. Additionally, new procedures and treatments will be developed. New drugs will be discovered. Costs will change. Insurance coverage will have to be continually modified to take these developments into account. It is near certain that those changes and modifications will be made in Washington with all the alacrity and deftness we have come to expect from government.

There will always be people upset and urging for change in policy. For every group that achieved a victory in the legislation, there is a group that lost. The victories won will never last. They will be fought over and over again. The people who are upset today will be running the system some day and it will be the turn of those now running the system to find themselves with the short end of the stick. Health care will become a fixture in many, if not all campaigns to come.

As personal and intimate as health care is to many voters, it is not an issue that will fade. As people move through their lives, their health care concerns will change. As they or loved ones become ill or are injured, their priorities will change. Health care will never be a static issue of budgets and staffing. It will always be a dynamic issue affecting millions upon millions of Americans. It is because of this that health care will never be behind us. It will always be in front of us.

A President for all Seasons.

Fresh off his reprise of LBJ, Obama has set his sights on JFK. On a visit to the Kennedy Space Center Obama told his audience that he is "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." His commitment to NASA however does not include a return trip to the moon. "We've already been there" said Obama. True to his vision, Obama has set his sights on bigger game. "There is a lot more space to explore" he went on to say. "Space exploration is not a luxury, not an afterthought in America's bright future - it is an essential part of that quest." If it is indeed essential and not an afterthought, why then has Obama waited nearly two years to bring the subject up? Perhaps his administration has been thinking about it the whole time and was just waiting for the right time to break it to the public.

At odds with his vision, and perhaps to reestablish himself as a sensible and sober man, Obama outlined a series of less than glamorous missions over the next few years. Those missions include practical things such as extending the life of the space station and developing new technology to ferry astronauts and cargo into orbit: not the sort of things dreams are made of. Obama's showcase goal however is to put a man on Mars and have a deep space rocket ready by 2015 but he gave no specifics on how he planned to bring those goals about. It is safe to assume that the administration has a plan. They have a plan for everything. We can be sure it is a very good plan.

It will not be long before Obama has everything straightened out and under control here on Earth. No doubt he expects to have his terrestrial obligations well in hand by the next election. After that he can set his sights on the stars. Not even the Earth itself can contain Obama's ambition. There is no reason to think he will not be able to realize his vision. He has not failed us yet. With all that Obama has accomplished so far, going to Mars should not be difficult: not for a gifted man like him. Even the solar system will know his name before he is through.

Obama has won a Noble Peace Prize. He has gotten his health care reform package through Congress. He has challenged the United States to put a man on Mars. If he can just fix the economy, he will truly be a president for all seasons.

A week without a new plan, a new goal, or at least a new headline, is a bad week for Obama. I do not know about the nation, but I am beginning to suffer Obama fatigue.

Bad Habits

On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee took major league baseball to task for its stance on smokeless tobacco. Why the issue was before the Energy and Commerce Committee was not explained. In any event, the committee all but demanded that baseball take steps to ban the chewing of tobacco by players during games. Baseball officials said they would see what they could do. Such a ban would have to be agreed to by players.

The concern over chewing tobacco is not about the health of the players or unsanitary playing fields. It is about the influence major league players have on kids and teens. It is feared that young players will try to emulate their major league heroes by taking up the habit themselves: a laudable concern. If major league baseball can be persuaded to ban the habit for the sake of America's youth, perhaps there are a few other things major league baseball could be persuaded to do on behalf of the kids.

Maybe baseball should consider banning scratching, poking, spitting, and picking on the field. Parents have enough trouble discouraging such behavior. They don't need baseball to make the problem worse. Certainly baseball should see what it could do about all the complaining and arguing that occurs on the field. Managers and players yelling at umpires sets a very poor example for kids. It encourages kids to yell at their parents and teachers if they feel a bad decision has been made. Petulance should also be banned. It is already a common place habit among youth and should not be encouraged.

There is a long list of poor behaviors and habits that exist among, not just baseball players, but all athletes. While chewing tobacco may be an obvious one, it certainly is not the only one. It is not even the worst one. Throwing a tantrum after you have been struck out or yelling at the umpire and kicking dirt on him are hardly behaviors that should be abetted by professional baseball players. But first things first.

Ouch.

Yesterday, Kenneth Brooker, the police chief of Flower Mound Texas, filed a complaint against Mayor Jody Smith and and mayor pro tem Jean Levenick accusing them of sexual harassment. The police chief claims he saw the the two women approach a police officer and pinch him on the buttocks. In the complaint, the police chief says he witnessed the officer being pinched on the rear by the two women as he stood in the Town Hall lobby. The officer being pinched did not seem to mind. Indeed, after being pinched, he commented that he had gotten his Christmas goose early. Nevertheless, the police chief felt it was an act of sexual harassment that violated rules and regulations. He felt it was his duty to file the complaint. He was following procedure. Some suspect that Brooker is bearing a grudge against one of the women involved. Chief Brooker is currently under evaluation and his performance has been questioned by Mayor Smith.

Brooker may well have acted correctly. There might indeed be a regulation against what the mayor and mayor pro tem did. Had the officer been a woman and the officials men, no doubt their actions would be viewed very differently. But they are not men and the officer was not a woman. If a complaint was to be filed, it should be the officer that was pinched who should file it, not a witness to it.

The officer who was pinched took the women's action as most men would, as a compliment. Brooker would seem to have an axe to grind. Either that, or he is jealous.

Trouble on the Horizon

Representative Bart Stupack,(D-Mi), announced yesterday that, after 9 terms in Congress, he would not seek re-election in the Fall. He gave the usual reason for his decision not to run. He wants to spend more time with his family. He denies he has chosen not to run because of growing animosity and increasing opposition toward him in his district. Interestingly, Stupack is identified as one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. He was also instrumental in getting the Health Care Reform bill through Congress.

According to some recent predictions, Republicans are likely to pick up seven seats in the Senate, 20 seats in the House, and 3 governorships. Republicans are feeling better than they have in a long time regarding the Fall elections. According to the Rasmussen Reports, 48% of the public now believes that republicans are better on the economy than democrats. 45% think democrats are better. Senator Majority Leader Harry Ried is now viewed unfavorably by by 56% of voters in his state. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is viewed unfavorably by 64% in her district. Last month, 63% of voters polled said they were dissatisfied with Congress. Congress is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats. If you consider that unhappy voters are more likely to turn out than contented voters, things look even less promising for Democrats in the Fall.

Interestingly, President Obama has so far only appeared at one rally in support of Democratic candidates. Perhaps this is due to the growing public discontent over massive spending, increased government control, and the failure of the administration to turn the economy around. It is just as likely that this is due to public unease at the many takeovers and bailouts made by the government over the last two years. All are programs closely associated with Obama. No doubt Obama's herculean efforts to get his health care plan through Congress also plays a large part in the growing dissatisfaction with Washington and the reluctance of many candidates to appear with him. Only 42% of voters approve of the new health care plan. 53% disapprove. Whatever the case, Obama is not quite the political asset he once was.

The hope that Obama inspired when he was elected is starting to turn into gloom under the swelling deficits, stagnant economy, and the heavy hand of democrats in Congress. Despite the trillion plus dollars spent by democrats in Washington to "stimulate" the economy, the economy is still struggling. Little progress has been made on difficult foreign policy issues. True, Obama has won a Nobel Peace Prize and just signed a new deal with Russia limiting nuclear weapons, but Iran and North Korea remain defiant. The troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan persist. No progress has been made in the Middle East. And China remains an enigmatic and growing rival in Asia and is beginning to cast glances around the world.

Obama has had two years to validate the hope he inspired and bring about the change he pledged. He has not done so. The hope he offered has not been transformed into reality but has become apprehension. Partisan rancor is high. The change Obama promised has disappeared into a swamp of backroom deals, bribes, and political maneuvering. The transparency pledged by Obama after his election has become opaque.

The way things are going, the Republicans will have a lot to run on in the next election. The Democrats will have to run on what they have done: and what they have done is not very popular. Despite the bold promises of the Obama administration and democrats in Washington, little has changed. If anything, things have gotten worse. It has turned out that Obama is not the savior many had hoped he would be. He is simply a politician, albeit a very good one. The Democrats have had firm control in Washington for two years. They will not be able to blame Republicans, though they certainly will try. Obama has little to help democrats with at this point except his charm. That still might be enough.

From the early polls, it appears that Obama and the democrats have only 6 more months to change the world. After that, they will have to negotiate.

"Sensible" Immigration Reform.

This morning, supporters for immigration reform announced they will be holding a rally in Dallas. It was stated that the purpose of the rally will be to urge support for "comprehensive, sensible and feasible" immigration reform. They hope to draw 100,000 for the event.

Because the group is advocating for a "sensible" and "feasible" immigration policy, it is implied that those opposed to such reform are irrational and unrealistic. The specific immigration reforms sought by the group were not mentioned but it is safe to assume they will be urging policy more amenable to immigrants and immigration than the irrational and unrealistic policies they claim are being advocated by those who are upset at the tide of immigration that has swept the nation.

This begs the question of what exactly constitutes a sensible and realistic immigration policy. That is precisely what the debate over immigration is about. Advocates for immigration are certain that their policies are realistic and fair. Their opponents are just as certain in their position. Such debates cannot be settled through rallies and protest marches. They are best settled through the ballot box. The problem for immigration advocacy groups is that when the issue is left to voters, more often than not voters disapprove of immigration on the scale we are experiencing today. Because of this, pro immigration groups are reluctant to rely on elections and voters to bolster their position. It is also a significant reason why they often attempt to portray opponents of immigration as racists and xenophobes. Certainly policy should not be left to such people.

There should be a discussion about immigration and what policy should be in regard to it. Unlike many supporters of immigration, I am inclined to believe the issue should be left to voters to decide whenever possible. It is their communities which are affected by immigration. It is they who must bear the burdens and suffer the turmoil caused by shifting demographics. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of those who are concerned about the effect of immigration on the scale we are witnessing today are not xenophobes, jingoists, or racists. They are regular people holding jobs, paying bills, and raising families. They are the ones who pay the costs of unchecked immigration. Yet they are the ones most often excluded from the debate. They are the ones that, when they express their reservations or apprehensions about immigration, are likely to be chastised as hateful or ignorant.

The exclusion of citizens from the immigration debate only fuels resentment towards the issue. That resentment sometimes boils over into protests. Where those protests are well organized they will often be portrayed as being machinated by selfish, hard hearted, and quite possibly racist elements. When the protests are motley or disorganized expressions of anti-immigration sentiments, it will be argued that most, if not all protesters are acting from ignorance, dark motives and prejudice.

It is citizens and communities that bear the greatest burden when it comes to immigration. They should have a say. But, as is often the case, the citizens are not trusted to act in accordance with the ambitions and desires of activists. Elections and referendums are to be avoided whenever the results sought are in doubt. In such cases, it is best to cut out the middle man and go straight to the statehouse. If the state house proves unsympathetic to the cause, policy should be taken to the court house. When citizens are excluded from political debate, resentment and frustration can be counted on. That frustration and resentment in turn will be used against the public by pro immigration groups when they portray themselves as struggling against an intolerant society.

When elections cannot be counted on to achieve desired policy, other methods must be found. It is near certain that the rallies and protests planned are not intended to woo or change the minds of voters. The audience for such protests will be the media and the state house. If the marches and protests succeed, the public will read about the new policy in the newspaper. By then it will be too late for them to do much about it. Voters are rarely asked for their opinion on what constitutes rational and sensible immigration policy. More often they are told.

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.