You Cannot Limit the Unlimited

Increasingly, there are fewer and fewer limits to what we expect from government. We expect the government to provide us with health care. We expect the government to help us to get a job and support us if we cannot. We expect the government to help us with our mortgage and pay our bills. We expect the government to make sure we are not harassed at work. The government has been more than willing to encourage us in this notion. Indeed, it peddles it. Every two years politicians promise to help us realize our wishes and desires and to protect us from adversity. Every four years we are offered competing visions of America and what it can be: what it should be.

In the U.S., we are told that everything is possible. Hunger can be abolished. Equality can be achieved. College can be in the grasp of every one who wants it. Health care can be had by everyone who desires it. Whatever the desire or need of the people, the government promises to help us satisfy it. Happiness and prosperity are promised for all. Sometimes, however, those promises are more than just campaign sweet talk. Sometimes they are sincere goals. Sometimes they are open ended, unlimited promises: such as to end injustice or guarantee quality health care and jobs to every American. All that is needed is the right people and the right policies.

Unlimited goals require unlimited power. If the goal of the government is to provide us everything we want, it will need the power to achieve that goal. Limits on government come to be perceived as limits on the people and obstacles to their happiness, or at least their contentment. But this is only true true where the people have come to rely on government to achieve their desires. If the government cannot intervene in society, people cannot intervene in society. This is an intolerable limit to the visionaries who consistently attempt to nudge society closer to perfection.

When politicians are elected on the promises they have made regarding what they will do for us, we expect them to deliver on those promises. If the law prevents or inhibits the fulfillment of those promises, it is argued that the law must yield. Unlimited promises cannot be met by limited government. Given the choice between tailoring our desires and needs to meet the power of limited government, or expanding the scope and power of the government to meet our needs and desires, time and time again we have chosen to expand the government. Every expansion of government is simultaneously an expansion of government power. Government cannot give us what we want unless it has the power to do so. The more the public demands or accepts from government, the more power government will need to satisfy the public. The more power claimed by the government, the less liberty we have.

Needs are limited. Desires are not. A government dedicated to fulfilling our desires has to be an ever expanding government and so will continually push against any barrier erected to block its expansion. In order for the government to fulfill the demands of the public it must have the power to do so. The greater the demands placed on government, the greater the power needed by government to satisfy them.

Tolerance and Dignity?

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

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

Where are the Jobs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking the Measure of Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating the Society We Want

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viagra for Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Is Their Money Too

As the ocean of stimulus money flows over the nation, curiosities and anomalies keep popping up. Recently the city of Euless, TX became a source of acrimony in Washington over the city's plan to use a part of the $454,000 in federal stimulus funding it received to replace light bulbs at a series of local softball fields. The project was one of a hundred singled out by Senators as wasteful and mismanaged.

The criticism took officials in Euless by surprise. They had simply taken advantage of a program the federal government made available. The lights needed changing and the government was giving away money. It made perfect sense. There was nothing duplicitous or underhanded about it. The United States may not have needed new lights at a softball field, but Euless did. Still, many grumble that officials in Euless did not look at the big picture. They only saw what the city of Euless needed. Rather than contemplate the national economy, Euless decided to spend the money and fix something that needed fixing.

It is not as though the money was wasted. According to the Energy Department, 2.8 jobs were saved by the spending. That has to count for something.

Wrong People, Wrong Place.

It was reported this morning that Israel is preparing to expel hundreds of small children born in Israel to migrant workers. Though the children were born and raised in Israel and speak Hebrew, they are not Israeli and do not belong there. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said the program was needed to stem a "flood of illegal immigrants." About 400 children and their parents are expected to leave. Netanyahu went on to say "We don't want to create an incentive for the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers": a familiar enough argument, even if the numbers are exaggerated. But Netanyahu went on to say that the move was necessary to defend Israel's Jewish identity. That is also a familiar enough argument. But is familiar for quite different reasons. It is the argument that lay behind many of the most grievous crimes and savagery in history.

To get a sense of this argument one should try it on for size. Pick an ethnicity, race or religion and see how that argument sits on the ears. "We need to expel blacks to preserve our white identity." "We need to expel the Chinese to preserve our European identity." "We need to expel Catholics to preserve our Protestant identity." They don't quite seem to have the same ring about them.

If anyone should know the perils of defining a state along the lines of race, religion, or ethnicity, Israel should. The Jews have suffered from that more than most.

Rangel's Bungling

Representative Charles Rangel is in trouble. The long time Congressman from New York is facing 13 counts of wrong doing for his financial dealings and fiscal improprieties. He says he didn't do it. He also says he did do it but he didn't mean to: he wasn't paying enough attention. He even says he did it but that he is being singled out unfairly because many in Congress do what he is accused of doing. He is hoping one of those excuses will work.

Rangel's defense is common enough: there is nothing novel to it. It would be a rare thing for a member of Congress to admit to wrong doing before it was absolutely impossible to deny it. Even then, many would persist in their denial. Of all the accusations against Rangel, and there are a few, the one that is the most curious is the charge that he was hiding assets and failing to pay taxes. What makes this accusation so interesting is that Rangel is the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone in the nation should be willing to pay his taxes, it should be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. If anyone should be familiar with tax rules and regulations, it should be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. If he is not knowledgeable about tax laws and regulations, who is? If he is not willing to pay his taxes in full, who should? If Rangel made errors on his taxes, he is either incompetent or corrupt. For someone in Rangel's position, inattentive is the same thing as incompetent.

A man in Rangel's position has no reason to avoid paying his taxes. A man in Rangel's position should not even hire an accountant: he should just write a check when the bill is presented. If Rangel believes that the tax code is overly burdensome or unfair, he should work to change it. He should not try to circumvent it. He did chair the committee that writes tax code after all. Like many in Congress, Rangle is willing to pass laws he has no intention of living under, write rules he has no intention of following, and enact programs he will never rely upon.

Congress writes laws. That is what makes it so easy for them. That is what makes it so difficult for us. When members of Congress ignore the very laws they have written, there can be no good reason for it. There can be bad reasons. Rangel clearly cannot tell the difference.

Rangel has been in Congress for 39 years. He has worked to pass many laws. Evidently, Rangel believes some of those laws do not pertain to him. To seek to avoid laws that one has had a hand in enacting is a shameful thing. It is unfortunate that there is so little shame in Washington anymore. In the absence of shame, we will have to make do with ethics committees.

Absurdity

I recently received a sales call. Judging by the thick accent, I presume the call was made from outside the U.S. The caller read me my social security number and asked me to verify it. I was indignant. I asked him how he had gotten my social security number. Although he could speak English, the caller clearly had difficulty understanding it. After several increasingly frustrated requests on my part, the caller transferred me to his supervisor. When I asked the supervisor how they had obtained my social security number he told me he would be happy to answer my question: but first he needed me to give him my social security number.

The Desert is Getting Smaller

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, it was reported that Ismail Mohamed Salem's house has been destroyed. It was bulldozed by the Israelis. He is not alone. 45 other homes have been destroyed in Salem's village of El Arqib. In fact, the whole village was destroyed and its 300 residents made homeless. Salem is a Bedouin living in the Negev Desert in Israel and his village is in the way. The Negev Desert came under Israeli control after Israel's founding in 1948. The region is of some importance to Israel. In addition to being used as a training ground for the Israeli military, it also has a toxic waste incinerator, two rivers of open sewage, and serves as a dump for Tel Aviv.

Over the years, Israel has attempted to manage its Bedouin population. There are approximately 175,000 Bedouin in the Negev Desert. The Negev constitutes roughly 60% of Israel's land mass. It is inevitable that sooner or later Israel will get around to settling it in earnest. When they do, the Bedouin will have to move. Under Israel's Removal of Intruders law, non Israelis in the Negev can be evicted at any time. After living for generations in the Negev, Bedouin like Ismail Mohamed suddenly find that they are intruders and that they are to be removed.

To prepare the way for Jewish expansion, the ground must first be cleared. This has primarily been done by pushing the Bedouin into one of seven areas set aside for them in southern Israel (We used to call them Reservations.) So far, only about half of the Bedouin population has yielded to Israeli pressure to relocate. Those that have moved have found themselves living in poor, desolate communities with few jobs, fewer amenities, and no government services. Israel asserts that the communities are just fine. They have electricity, sewage and schools just like Tel Aviv does: as if the Bedouin were being moved to the suburbs rather than makeshift villages. What more does a person need? Who would not trade their dignity and what is left of their way of life for sewage, electricity, and schools, even rudimentary ones? Many Bedouin as it turns out. When Israel cannot tempt or coax the Bedouin off their land they bring in the bulldozers. Israel rarely, if ever, offers to buy the land. Salem, who is 70 years old, has had six homes destroyed by the Israelis over the years.

The Bedouin have lived in the Negev for over 1,000 years. After it acquired the Negev, Israel imposed military administration over it. The Bedouin who lived in the Negev were declared to be there illegally and their villages were deemed "unrecognized." Indeed, Israel went so far as to erase the Arabic names for the towns and villages on its maps and replace them with Hebrew names. Much of the Bedouin population was forcibly removed from their homes and concentrated in a few towns like Beersheba.

Israel claims they are simply cracking down on "unrecognized shanty towns." By cracking down they do not mean reviewing permits and issuing citations: they mean leveling with bulldozers. The reason the towns are shanty towns is because they are built without the resources and material available to other communities in Israel. For all intents and purposes, they are dusty, impoverished reservations set aside to hold Bedouin. They are not towns or villages in any proper sense of the word. They are hastily built settlements created to provide shelter and tend to the basic needs of the people who find themselves living in them. The reason they are not recognized is that Israel refuses to recognize them. Nearly 80% of Bedouin live in unrecognized villages and settlements. That means nearly the entire Bedouin population is subject to eviction and relocation.

For centuries, the Bedouin roamed freely across the desert, (images of Lawrence of Arabia come to mind), but no longer. The cramped life of the Bedouin is in large part due to the borders drawn after the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WWI. The new national borders established after the war curbed the traditional nomadic life of the Bedouin. For the Bedouin, those borders have become even narrower over the years.

The is very little room in Israel for people who are not Jewish. There is even less compassion. If Israel wants your land, they will take it. Israel's settlement policy has little to do with the safety or security of its population: the Bedouin have never posed a threat to Israel. It has nothing to do with the right of Jews to live in Israel: that right is not challenged by the Bedouin. It has to do with Israel's desire for racially pure communities. Israel's efforts to maintain its racial purity ensures that little room will be left for others. Like the Palestinians, the Bedouin are the wrong people in the wrong place and they are getting in the way. There is no place for the Bedouin in Israel.

Cut off from roads, water, electricity, schools and health care, and hobbled by onerous rules and regulations, Israel is doing its best to make those Bedouin who refuse to vacate their villages and lands feel unwelcome. It is difficult to see Israel as a victim here.

The Bedouin took up arms against the Ottomans in WWI. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire is what enabled Israel to be created. This is the thanks the Bedouin get. Israel has decided that the Bedouin have to move, and move they will, at bulldozer blade if necessary.

Mohamed Salem's story is a small one well off the front page. No doubt it was widely overlooked by many in the U.S., and that is unfortunate. But you can be assured it was not so widely overlooked in the Middle East. It is stories like Salem's (and there are many of them) that make Arab outrage at Israel comprehensible.

Few people have been able to get away with the sort of policies Israel has adopted. The Serbs and the South Africans must be scratching their heads.

Drawing the Line Somewhere

On Tuesday, the House acceded to President Obama's request for an additional $33 billion to pay for another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. That $33 billion pushed the total bill to $59 billion. The vote in the House was 308-1. The lone dissenter was Rep Jim McGovern, D-Mass. McGovern cast his vote out of principal. "We're told we cannot pay to extend unemployment or keep cops on the street or teachers in the class room (neither of which are federal responsibilities), but we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan" groused McGovern.

McGovern decided to make his stand in a peculiar place. One of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the United States from foreign enemies. One can disagree over whether U.S. policy in Afghanistan or Iraq is prudent or effective, but one cannot question the federal government's responsibility to handle it.

A quick glance at congressional spending reveals any number of places to make a stand. Congress is riddled with ear marks and pork. Among other things, Rep. Snyder, D-Ark requested $60 million for highways in his state. Rep. Norton, D.C. requested $15 million to shore up the Washington Marina. Rep Jerry Costello of Illinois requested $38 million for flood prevention in his district. Rep. Joe Baca, D-Ca, requested $1.3 million to widen a road. That is over $100 million for those representatives alone. The list of ear marks and pork is extensive.

There are 432 members in the House. Most of them have special projects in their district singled out for federal money. Most in Congress have a bushel of ear marks and a barrel of pork. $15 million here and $60 million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. According to the Washington Post, 9,413 earmarks were set aside in 2010 for a total of $16 billion. McGovern himself has over 30 earmarks totaling more than a few million. To review a complete list would take a considerable amount of time: certainly more time than the average voter would care to spend. There certainly has to be another $17 billion in Washington under the couch cushions.

McGovern objected to a bill spending a mere $33 billion out of total budget of $3.5 trillion. Moreover, the bill on which he is making his stand deals with a war the U.S. is currently fighting. McGovern could have spit and found a better place to make a stand.

To Whom it May Concern

This morning I awoke to find out I was switched to the new blogger template. After trying most of the day to get back to my old format, (I am not very good with computers), I gave up. The new layout is the best I can do. I preferred the old one but I seem unable to do anything about it. I am simply another victim of capitalism. Evidently, the market was there for the new template. For people like me, there are few things more exasperating than having a product or service we did not ask for and do not want thrust upon us. The people who use blogger to post pictures of their children and vacations have triumphed over dreary people like me who use it simply to publish what they have written. To maintain two formats simply to accommodate Luddites like myself is a burden people at blogger are unwilling to bear.

I suppose I will have to do what most people do when they find a product or service that they have come to rely upon has been changed to a "new and improved" version: I will simply have to take it. In capitalism, like democracy, the majority prevails. And, like in democracy, when you lose in capitalism, there is no joy. But, unlike democracy, there is no court to take your economic grievances to. The market has the last word: if the government lets it of course.

At least it has a spell check.

Hope and Fear

Things are not going according to plan for President Obama. While he has succeeded in getting many of his ambitious proposals enacted, namely Health Care Reform, his success is not reflected in the polls. Things are going poorly in fact. So poorly that some Republicans anticipate gaining control of the House this Fall.

In April of last year, Obama's approval rating stood at an intoxicating 68%. Few presidents have ever achieved such numbers. In May of this year, his approval rating had dropped to a sobering 51%. More significantly, his disapproval ratings ratings rose from 20% to 40% over that same time period. CBS polls put Obama's rating at 38% approving and 43% disapproving. Harris Polls place the numbers at 49% and 45% respectively. Depending on the poll, Obama's approval varies from the mid 40s to the low 50s. According to Gallup, Obama's approval rating has been hovering around 47% for the last three months. Whichever poll you choose, it is still a long way from 68%.

What possibly could have happened? By almost any standard, Obama's presidency has been a success. Every major policy initiated by the president has been approved. Virtually every major problem in the U.S. has been addressed, from the economy and education to obesity. Trillions of dollars have been spent to bail out and stimulate the economy. What has gone wrong? That depends on who you ask.

Republicans would simply point out that familiarity breeds contempt and people have become familiar with Obama and his policies and his policies haven't worked. Democrats would claim that nothing has gone wrong and that things are improving, albeit more slowly than they had anticipated. They blame republicans, counter revolutionary elements, and logistics. Republicans, they claim, have been doing their best to obstruct and undermine the administration. Some are doing it out of principal the White House admits, but most are doing it out of spite. We are told that republicans and their counter revolutionary henchmen are trying to drag America back into the dark ages, which are usually identified as the years between 2000 and 2008 AD.

They blame logistics by citing the difficulty of spending a trillion dollars. They also argue that an economy the size of the U.S.'s takes time to turn around and that the problems laid on the lap of the administration were years in the making and cannot be expected to be fixed in a few short years, despite the promises made in 2008. A trillion dollars can only do so much. We are told that once the changes made by the administration kick in, the economy will be humming again: just as once the administration's overhaul of the health care industry takes hold, people will appreciate what Obama has done for them. As for the debt, we are assured the administration has a plan. Even though many predict we are rapidly approaching a cliff, the administration tells us not to worry about it. Once everything else is under control and the economy rebounds, the debt will virtually take care of itself. We can just grow out of it. In the mean time, given the souring mood of the electorate, democrats prefer the subject not come up.

Patience is called for by the administration and its supporters. Time is needed for the policies enacted by administration to take root. Once the revolution finally bears fruit, things will be better in the U.S. for everyone. People will be happier, healthier, and wealthier than they have ever been: unless the counterrevolutionaries take power in the next election.

While the numbers may vary, polls show that republicans have good reason to be optimistic for the fall. If democrats are not able to garner the hope of the electorate, they will need to shift public attention away from how bad things are, to how bad things will be if the republicans take over. If they can do so, they have a good chance in the fall. The republicans have it easier. Many people only have to open their mail or read the newspaper to find out how bad things are. Some only have to get out of bed. The trick for the republicans is to persuade people that they can fix things and not make them worse.

It will be difficult for democrats to run on what they have done in 2010. What they have done is not very popular. Neither can they run on what they will do if they achieve power. They have achieved power. Obama ran on hope in 2008. In 2010, many democrats will run on fear.

Pushing the Envelope

Alvin Greene is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina. The unemployed military veteran is beginning to catch on. His awkward comments, such as suggesting that a line of action figures be modeled after him to create jobs, are largely gone. He is getting into a true campaign rhythm, uttering platitudes such as the "need to get Americans back to work" and "let's move South Carolina forward." Even with his revamped platform, he is still a long shot to win.

Greene's story is a remarkable one and has garnered no small amount of press. In a headline today it was announced that Greene was able to avoid embarrassing himself in his first major speech since winning his nomination. At least they spelled his name correctly.

In the article, it was mentioned as if in passing that Greene is facing a felony charge for showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student and asking her to his room. What the photos consisted of was not mentioned. Standards for nominating and electing candidates have been declining for years. Sexual affairs, fiscal improprieties, and lack of experience are no longer obstacles, even for the U.S. Senate. In a nation where a second rate comedian and failed radio host with no experience like Al Frankin can get elected to the U.S. Senate, anyone can. Anyone but Alvin Greene perhaps.

Greene's problem might be his timing. If he had waited a few more years before running, his chances would be much better. They used to advise politicians never to be caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman. Those standards have eased considerably over the years. Ted Kennedy was implicated in the death of a woman but had an illustrious career in the Senate. Alvin Greene only showed a woman some dirty pictures. It is only a matter of time until showing obscene pictures of yourself to a woman becomes a peccadillo, a speed bump at worst, for politicians. Until that time arrives, candidates such as Alvin Greene will be at a disadvantage.

It is likely that Greene could have killed the woman and chopped her into pieces and not harmed his chances of being elected. You have to give Greene credit for pushing the envelope though. It is men like him that pave the way for others.

The Other Debt Crisis

There is a debt problem in the U.S. People have been borrowing money at an alarming rate over the years, many beyond their ability to repay. Credit cards are identified as the chief culprit of the growing debt crisis. People have been borrowing money at a steadily increasing rate to satisfy their ambitions and cover their expenses: the "trap of easy money" as some call it. Many have run up debt to improve or maintain their lifestyle. Others have relied on credit cards to help themselves through college or to meet expenses and keep themselves afloat during difficult times. Whatever the reasons, personal debt is on the increase.

In Seattle, Washington the average debt per person is $26,646 according to Experian, a business and consumer debt reporting firm, followed closely by Dallas where the average consumer debt is $26,599. Denver, Atlanta, and Phoenix are other cities where the average consumer debt exceeds $26,000 per person. The national average is $24,775. Grim numbers indeed. But that is not the end of their financial woes. As of 2009, the per capita share of the national debt was $40,101. According to the latest U.S. census, the average annual income in the U.S. is $35,659. In a sense, the average tax payer is bankrupt.

In 2000, the national debt represented 79% of personal income in the United States according to Experian. In 2009, that percentage had grown to an astonishing 112% of personal income, up from an appalling 99% percent in 2008. It is going to get worse. The deficit is expected to grow to $1.5 trillion over the next year. Even if every household in the U.S. payed off their credit cards and mortgages, most Americans would still be in debt well beyond their ability to pay. Their share of the national debt is nearly insurmountable. While there has been a concerted effort over the years to get a grip on personal debt, there has been little effort to address the government's debt beyond oration and exhortation. Few seem to realize that the government's debt is ultimately our debt. The government does not spend its own money. It spends our money.

People have been willing, often reluctantly, to take the advice of experts and cut back on their spending and make sacrifices in order to make headway on their debt. Some simply have had no choice. The government has made no such effort. Quite the contrary. President Obama has been determined to spend even more and accrue new costs and obligations. The deficit increased by $960 billion last year alone. While President Bush began digging the hole we find ourselves in today, President Obama has decided to dig even harder. Worse, he seems to have concluded that the only way out of the hole is to keep digging. Maybe Obama believes that if he keeps digging, he will finally dig his way to China. That is where the money is.

Perhaps the government has been willing to pile up the debt because it it believes that no one will foreclose on it or repossess anything it has bought. They are right. The Chinese are not going to repossess our health care system. But they can ruin our credit and make it impossible for us to keep running our government as it has been running unless it makes drastic spending cuts or raise taxes exorbitantly. Neither prospect is likely. If our credit line is cut off, the effects would be disastrous given our budget. Even FDR himself would not be able spend his way out of that.

Personal debt is undermining the economy. Government debt will ruin it. If people are having difficulty paying their debts, how can we expect them to pay the government's? Who is going to cut up the government's credit card? Just as borrowing money has been the bane of many people, it will be the ruin of the U.S. If the government cannot borrow what it needs, it will get it from us. If you think creditors and banks are determined to collect what they are owed, wait until the government shows up at your door.

What Would Jesus Do?

Religious leaders recently descended on Washington to weigh in on the immigration debate. Scripture was thick as the Bible was quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abounded. We were reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We were also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smiled as the Bible was often turned in on itself and exposed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread through all the injunctions and commandments that is too frequently ignored by those who expound scripture. That thread is that the commandments and injunctions are addressed to people, not governments.

There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as those who descended on Washington pointed out. But that imperative does not fall on governments or societies. It falls on each and everyone of us. We were not instructed to support candidates and policies to help those in need. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a perfect state. He came for mankind, one soul at a time.

The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about.

Jesus did not come to fix the world. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count.

Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus.

Clockwork Students

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist William McKenzie sets out his ideas on how to improve education in the U.S. He begins with a nod towards President Obama's "Race to the Top" education plan. In particular, Mckenzie takes hold of the "parental engagement" role in that race. Parents, says Mckenzie enthusiastically, are the "new educational frontier."

"Lets deal first with why going after parents makes sense" McKenzie writes ominously. The reason we must go after parents is because parents will not come to us. McKenzie then sets out to make his case. Not just any case, but a thoroughly modern and scientific one. Anything less will not do.

McKenzie first notes that "A significant body of research shows students whose parents pay serious attention to their classwork end up with larger horizons than peers whose parents don't open the world to them." It is difficult to know what to do with this statement. Children whose parents are interested and involve themselves in their education and homework do better in school than their peers whose parents don't. There is nothing new here. Children whose parents involve themselves in their activities in general tend to be better adjusted and more content. It is as if, after years of statistical, pedagogical, economic, psychological, methodological, racial, ethnic, gender, and class studies and evaluations, parents have once again been added to the calculation: and it is a calculation. Studies, numbers, reports, and evaluations all point to the remarkable conclusion that parents have a large impact on their children's education. While it has long been suspected that parents play an influential role in their child's development, we finally have the numbers to prove it.

McKenzie's editorial is at times a tedious and tiresome exercise of belaboring the obvious. We are informed that by reading to children and getting them ready for school in the morning parents increase their children's chances of getting into college. It is also a pointless exercise because parents who do not read to their children or get them ready for school are unlikely to read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News. Unless, of course, McKenzie is not writing to those parents but is instead writing to the rest of us in order to encourage us to take action. And by take action, he means find someway to encourage or compel those neglectful parents to change their ways. He cites Heather Weiss, director of the Family Research Project at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education who states that "what families do is one of the strongest predictors of a child's success." A fair enough observation. But Weiss doesn't stop there. She adds ominously that "the difficulty is how to translate that understanding into interventions that move the needle." By intervening to "move the needle" Wiess no doubt means change how parents raise their children. By "translate" we can infer that what she means is how we can bring that change about.

What this comes down to is a discussion over how best to change the way parents raise their children. It is one thing to discuss how best to raise children. It is quite another to discuss how we can change the way people raise their children. According to modern, scientific standards, many parents are doing an inadequate job raising their children. There is no way to change this without somehow getting between the parent and the child. The growth of "parenting programs" developed to address the perceived inadequacy of parents is disturbing on a number of levels. Perhaps none are so disturbing as the "Cradle to career" program advocated by Weiss.

The "Cradle to Career" program would be a "breakthrough" that would change the way children are raised in the U.S. The program would entail parents working in tandem with schools to raise their children. Indeed, part of a school principle's task would require him or her to assess how well that child was being "parented." Parenting that resulted in increased school performance would be "good" parenting and reflect positively on those principals in those districts where it occurred. Poor school performance would infer poor parenting and, we can assume, in a poor evaluation. Principals would be motivated to monitor how well children in their school were being "parented' and to intervene where that "parenting" was deemed to be inadequate.

In a chilling statement, McKenzie writes that "Districts that do parenting well make parental engagement part of the principal's annual review." Districts do not "do parenting." Only parents do "parenting." I am not even quite sure what "parenting" means. I do not think McKenzie or Weiss have given it much thought beyond the ability to equip children to perform tasks determined to be valuable or important by society. But to hold school districts and principals accountable for how well parents are raising their children is to give them a stake in how that child is being raised. That would be an intolerable intrusion into family life. Schools teach children. They should not raise them.

Raising children is one of the most private and personal activities that can be imagined. Some people raise "good" children. Some people raise "bad" children. "Good" parents can raise "bad" children and "bad" parents can raise "good children." Raising children is not a science. It is an art. Yet, again and again, from Obama to Weiss, to McKenzie, it is treated as a science. In ancient Greece, where the subject was first brought up, art was distinguished from science in that art required wisdom and virtue where science only required knowledge and skill. Science could be taught. Art could only be achieved. Good students cannot be produced any more than good children can be produced.

All of the laws, regulations, and codes in the world cannot create a good parent, a good student, or even a good person. To claim otherwise is hubris of the highest order. There is an arrogance on the part of those who think the world can be remade if only the the right laws can be crafted and the right policies adopted. Whether one goes after teachers, students, parents, textbooks, or curriculum, education will remain a subjective and elusive affair. It always has been subjective and imprecise and it always will be. This is because education involves people. People write text books and devise lesson plans. People read text books (or don't read them). People teach and people learn.

All of the planning and statistical analyses in the world will not result in a good education. Only good teachers and good students will result in good education. But we no longer recognize good as a standard. There are only goals and efficacy in achieving those goals. Education has become a system of clockwork teachers teaching clockwork students. The failure of the educational "system" is interpreted by people like McKenzie and Weiss as the result of flaws such as inadequate parenting or poor organization and curriculum by the schools. Those flaws can be rectified through incentives, adjustments, and programs to compensate for the unpredictable human factor in the system.

Too many beleive that, sooner or later, if we work hard enough we will finally get the bugs out of the educational system and at last get to where every student receives a good education and goes on to a fulfilling and productive career. And that is what getting an education is all about: getting a good job and being productive. Once that is achieved, we can move on to the next great challenge, whatever that may be.

To anyone who might wonder why it is society's or the government's business in the first place how parents raise their children, or how well a child does in school, it is because their business is no longer their business. Through economic casuistry, there is no such thing as personal business anymore. Everything that in any way touches upon the community or the economy is society's business. And society's business is the government's business. Government cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents raise ineffective children.

You cannot force parents to care about their child's education. You may be able to bribe or coerce schools to achieve goals and meet standards. You can even bribe and coerce parents to work with schools to achieve those goals and standards. But no amount of bribery or coercion can compel care. And, without care, all you are left with is coercion and bribery. That is no way to raise a child or run a school.

Education is not a commodity or a product. It cannot be produced or delivered. It is an activity that must be engaged in. To compel people to participate in education is like compelling people to play the piano. You might be able to teach them the notes and how to read music. You can teach them technique. But you cannot make them want to do it and you certainly can't make them any good at it: especially if they don't care or do not want to be good at it. They may be able to read music and reproduce what is written, but that is only technique. It is not education in any meaningful sense. You can teach kids to read and write. You can teach kids to remember what they read and repeat it. But you cannot make them want to read and write nor can you make them understand what they have read. Even parents can't do that. At some point, people enter the equation.

Education is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. If the end is not desired, the means will be of little interest. Despite the best efforts of statisticians, social scientists, politicians, and teachers, some people will learn and others won't. It is human nature. All the methodology and science in the world cannot change human nature. That is what drives liberals crazy and gives humanity hope.

Parents are the new frontier writes McKenzie. Other frontiers await. New correlations will be found. New causalities will be deduced. New tools will be developed. We are on the verge of a brave new world.

Come on Down!

Washington has begun taking steps, very small ones, to demonstrate its seriousness about addressing the appalling national debt. After a spending frenzy, many in Washington are eager to put their profligacy behind them as they prepare for elections in the Fall. To this end, there is talk of raising the benefit retirement age from from 65, or 66 depending on exactly where you fall in the spectrum, to 70. No numbers were given on how much money such a move would be expected to save. It is very unlikely it will have any appreciable impact on the debt. The country is not going broke because too many people are retiring. But a step is a step and every step is a headline.

According to some, raising the age from 65 to 70 would be "politically acceptable" (a phrase which always brings to mind a party official addressing the Politburo), because it would have very little immediate effect. "Raising the retirement age- going out 20 years and not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 - is a step that needs to be taken" said House Republican leader John Boehner. And a shrewd step that would be. Those receiving benefits would continue to receive them and those far from the the new retirement age would not pay much attention to it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sought to demonstrate the new resolve and sobriety of Congress when he stated that "we are lying to ourselves if we say we can maintain our current levels of spending... without bankrupting the country." Many in Washington have a knack for stating the obvious only after it is no longer possible to avoid it.

People are healthier and living longer than they ever have before. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 80.8 years at the moment. It is expected to rise to 81.9 by 2020. That means people will linger even longer and mooch off the government for an additional year unless something is done about it. And, if Obama's health care plan works out as claimed, we can expect even more people to live well into their eighties, if not beyond. The mooching problem will only get worse. Even if the retirement age is raised to 70, it will not be so bad. People can still hope for ten years to enjoy it.

There is greater glory in creating new programs than mending old ones. In its eagerness create new programs such as national health care, the government has neglected those programs that already exist. To off set the massive expenditures by Washington, some will soon have to work until they are 70 before they can retire. When you consider there are far more people in their 30's than there are in their 70's, it is a clever plan. Very few people in their 20's and 30's can even envision being in their 60's, let alone their 70's. Besides, future burdens have always been easier to bear than present ones.

It is always better to pass social programs than rely on them. In order to scrimp some savings, legislators in Washington are tinkering with a program none of them will have to rely upon. Where many once might have hoped they could retire with some good years left, they are now having to face the possibility of spending another five out of however many years they have left working.

The government has just been giving things away. Like in those late night furniture commercials, the government has been saying come on down! They will give us a whole new living room set with no money down and no interest for a year. But let there be no doubt, that furniture will be paid for along with the interest.

The government has only just begun to realize they cannot just keep spending money and giving things away. Many have always known that, sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for all the government is doing for us. They just hope it is not now and not them. In the mean time, come on down! This sale can't last forever.

Parking on Henderson Avenue

There is a parking problem on Henderson Avenue in Dallas. Henderson Avenue has a host of fashionable night clubs and restaurants and is a popular night spot in Dallas. Even though Dallas requires some businesses to provide parking, there is just not enough to go around. The root of the problem, according to the Dallas Morning News is that trends are unpredictable. The city just cannot predict what areas will become trendy and when.

Dallas should not feel bad. No one can predict the future, particularly when it comes to people. Cities and governments might plan for the future, but they cannot predict it. Humans are unpredictable. You just cannot know what they will like or want in the future. There may be general patterns, but when it comes to specifics such as where they will want to shop or eat, all bets are off. This unpredictability is a major headache for planners. In frustration with this fact, modern planners have shifted from trying to predict the future to trying to manipulate it. That is just what Dallas has been trying to do.

To this end, city officials, police, and neighborhood groups met recently to address the problems on Henderson Street. According to Dallas police Deputy Chief Vincent Golbeck, "Its going to be a political, public safety, economic development issue." I have news for Chief Golbeck, it is going to be none of those things. The city may be able to address parking and safety problems on Henderson Street. But, as the Morning News pointed out, trends cannot be predicted. No one knows where the next hot spot will be. When it pops up, the city will have to go through the whole thing again. You just cannot predict the future.

Despite this fact, government never gives up. Over the years as faith in the efficacy of government has increased, government has steadily moved away from trying to predict the future to trying to manipulate it. Many cities have shifted from chasing trendy spots to trying to create them. They provide tax breaks, (the usual government tool), or manipulate zoning codes to attract businesses that are hoped will create the vibrant, eclectic neighborhoods so many cities crave. Every city wants a Greenwich Village. They will often go to great lengths to get one. But it just doesn't work that way. People will go where they want to go, not where the government or city planners want them to go. If you could just zone a Greenwich Village into existence, every city would have one. Dallas may want people to find some other way down to Henderson Avenue. But it will have to find some way to compel them if it is to do so.

Those ambitious souls with their visions of what society should be are notoriously impatient. When their vision of the future exceeds their patience, they act to bring that vision about. Whether it is health care, social justice, or trendy night spots, progressives will act to lead society to the future as they envision it. To that end they are forever planning and legislating. They will try to entice through manipulating ordinances and tax codes. If that fails, they will coerce.

The problem is often that the more reluctant people are to embrace the image of the future held out to them, the more determined progressives become. A determined progressive is one of the greatest enemies a free society can have, for they will not rest until society is bent to their vision.

Can You Spare a Dime?

With the upcoming gubernatorial election in Texas, lines are being drawn. Liberals have begun to line up after Bill White, while conservatives are mobilizing in support for Governor Perry. Like many neighborhoods across Texas, supporters in my small town have begun to declare themselves with yard signs and bumper stickers.

The other morning, as I walked the dogs, I came across a yard with a "Bill White for Governor" sign prominently displayed. Bill White is the Democratic candidate for governor in Texas. Now I know that many liberals, among other things, pride themselves on their "compassion" for the suffering and less fortunate. I presumed the owner of the sign shared those sensibilities.

I had been by the house many times before, but that morning the owner was out tending to his front yard. I asked him if he was a Bill White supporter. "Yes" he said. I told him I was disabled and unemployed, (both are true), and asked him if he would give me $20. After giving me a peculiar look, it only took him a moment to tell me no. I didn't really expect him to give it to me.

Most liberals would not hesitate to support a government plan to increase spending for the unemployed or disabled. Most would shrug off the spending of tax dollars to support the cause, even if it meant taxes would have to be raised or the government expanded and go further into debt. Many consider it a duty to tend to the needs of society's less fortunate. Most liberals are proud of their compassion and do not care how much that compassion costs. How many were willing to support spending hundreds of billions of dollars to create a national health care plan?

The gentleman I spoke with this morning might sincerely believe that government should be more compassionate and do more to help the disabled and the unemployed. All I know is that he would not give me a dime.

Liberals fancy they are the champions of the poor and the suffering. They are willing to go to great lengths and spend billions to demonstrate their commitment and compassion. It is easy to imagine the howls if the government proposed cutting welfare benefits or trimming WIC. Their zeal for increasing social benefits for the needy and disadvantaged is often on display, from bumper stickers to protests at the capitol. For many liberals, money is no object when it comes to funding social programs. They have no qualms about the government spending of billions of dollars to help those in need. But just ask one for $20. I dare you.

Anyone who voted for Obama or supports liberal candidates out of compassion for the homeless and less fortunate should contact me. I can take them down to the end of the park outside my apartment and I will show them some real, flesh and blood homeless people they can help. I do not expect anyone to contact me. Most people prefer to give at the voting booth.

Oil and Irony

This afternoon, I stopped by the live feed of the oil gusher in the gulf. After a few moments of watching oil spew from the sea floor, the feed was interrupted by one of the maddening ads that are proliferating on the web. What was amazing is that the ad was for the new Audi: the luxury car for demanding tastes. Can Audi be so blind as to run an ad for automobiles over a video of the worst oil disaster in human history? Evidently so.

The First Amendment

With the hearings taking place over Elena Kagan, there is naturally much discussion regarding the Constitution. One of the most contentious issues is always the First Amendment. The First Amendment is widely known as the amendment where we find the rights to free speech and privacy: two of the the rights most commonly wrestled over. It is the amendment in which abortion and flag burning are anchored. Privacy and speech are important, even vital to democracy. But as important as they are, they are not sufficient. There is another part of the First Amendment: the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. The right to petition government is one of the most important rights we have. It allows us to challenge government and seek remedy for those things we find burdensome or onerous. It is arguably the cornerstone of democracy. It is also the right most often eclipsed in the discussion over the First Amendment.

Every time a right is discovered or expanded by the court, political discourse on the matter ends and the issue is removed from public debate. The matter is settled and cannot be revisited except by the court itself. The public can longer petition the government for change. They certainly cannot petition the court. Redress is no longer available. If there is a grievance, it must be endured. Democracy shrinks as one more issue is removed from the public realm and placed beyond the reach of voters.

The right to petition government is vital to democracy because it gives those unhappy with law or policy the opportunity to change it. The Constitution guarantees that right. No loss is permanent in politics. Each election is a new occasion for the public to avail itself of that right and seek change. Democracy cannot exist without it. To that end, it is the job of the court to ensure that right is protected and available to all people. But what is to be done if the court itself abridges that right? What can be done if the court nibbles away at what the public can and cannot petition? Nothing.

It was never meant for us to take our grievances to the Supreme Court. That is what the statehouse is for. One of the most important jobs of the court is to ensure fair and equal access to the statehouse. But increasingly, access to the statehouse is not enough. People are impatient. Many cannot wait for the statehouse to come around to their point of view. Results are demanded. Political losses have become confused with the abridgement of rights. There is a fear and distrust of democracy among those who rely on courts to secure their political goals. Where democracy is feared and distrusted, it cannot endure.

When the court shifts from determining what the government can and cannot do to what the government ought or ought not do it confuses means with ends and so enters the realm of policy. Society is led down a path to wherever the logic and reasoning of the court takes it. The people must hold their breath every time the court convenes and hope for the best. Indeed, hope is often all they have when it comes to the court. There is no recourse if a decision made by the court runs contrary to the will of the people.

In unrelated news, in its latest release, the Congressional Budget Office announced that, despite the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill and the hundreds of billions spent by the administration to prop up the economy, the national debt will continue to rise. It turns out that the new health care plan passed by Congress will not save money after all. At least it will not save the government money anyway. As it stands, government debt will be be 62 percent of the annual economic output in the U.S by the end of the year. It is predicted to rise to 87 percent by 2020. According to testimony by CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, such a level of debt would be unprecedented. Worse still, it is predicted that the debt will be 109 percent of the GDP by 2025.
We needn't be alarmed though. President Obama is expecting a plan on Wednesday from the deficit commission he appointed. I am sure that as long as the plan does not entail curbing his ambitions or his appetite for big government, Obama will be happy to go along with it, provided, of course, that any painful cuts or reductions can be put off at least until after his reelection. In any event, Obama will be gone before the economy collapses under the weight of the debt. At least I am sure he hopes so.

Tax Breaks

The debt commission appointed by President Obama is scheduled to present its report on containing the national debt later this year. The debt commission is a bi partisan panel created to formulate strategy on dealing with the massive and growing national debt. The debt stands at $13 trillion and is growing fast.

If I had any say in the matter, I would suggest one simple plan. I would not raise taxes or cut spending. I would simply end every tax break, exemption, and subsidy in the nation. There would be no tax shelters, no breaks for children, no business write offs, no subsidies or exemptions: absolutely nothing for anyone. Every one would have to pay the full amount of what they owed each year, every year: every one, with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever.

I would recommend this plan not because I think it is fair. It is not. Nor would it make any significant headway in bringing down the debt: at least not anytime soon. I recommend this because it would be an effective way of bringing home to people how much government costs. If more people experienced how much government truly costs, they might just want less of it. That would be a meaningful first step in getting federal spending under control.

And therein lies the rub. People want more government than they are willing to pay for.

It Has to Be Some One's Fault

On Saturday, a branch fell from a tree in Central Park and killed a 6-month-old girl. The girl and her mother were posing for a picture in the park when the branch fell. The mother was critically injured. A law suit is already in the works.

The incident, according to the New York Times, was the latest in a string of "deadly episodes" in the park. Branches have been falling from trees in the park, "plummeting" to the ground and injuring passers by. According to accounts, there was no indication that the branch was a danger. It was "large and healthy" according to one official. Accidents have been occurring with "alarming frequency" according to the article. No numbers were given.

There is debate in New York City over who is at fault for the accident. The city admitted it did not know who was responsible for the tree. "The investigation is ongoing" said park spokesman Vickie Karp. The Central Park Conservancy, a private group that has maintained trees in the park since 1998, is also under scrutiny. Someone has to be responsible for that tree and its branches.

It was a tragic accident, no doubt about it. But it was a freak accident. So was the previous accident where, after an unusually heavy snow, a snow laden branch fell and killed a man. In the case of the woman and her baby, the branch fell from a tree that gave no indication that it was unhealthy or dangerous. It was one of the thousands of trees in the park. Notwithstanding the rarity with which branches fall from healthy trees, the odds of someone standing under a branch with their baby when it happens is hardly worth even considering. Central Park covers 136 acres. There are over 26,000 trees in the park. Each of those trees has many branches. The city of New York is not only responsible for those 26,000 trees, they are responsible for each and every branch on those trees.

The odds of being struck by a falling branch are extraordinary. It is frequently assumed that the greater the odds against something happening, the more likely someone is behind it when it does. Where the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the machinations of the gods when tragedy struck, modern Americans see liability. There can be no other explanation. It is believed that branches simply don't fall from trees and kill people. But they do. Just not very often. According to the Tree Care Association, there were 407 tree related deaths across the nation between 1995 and 2007. That is less than the number of people killed by lightening. About 90 people a year are killed by lightening.

I read of a case years ago where a man sued God for a misfortune he suffered. He actually won the case (God didn't show up for the trial). The judge congratulated the man on his victory and wished him luck in collecting. Perhaps the man ought to have sued the government instead.

Trees and branches fall all the time. But it is felt they should never fall on people. When it happens, someone should pay. There is already talk of the "death traps" lurking throughout Central Park. How many more trees and branches are going to have to fall on people before the government does something about it? Not many.

In unrelated news, a 12 year old boy at Benjamin Franklin Middle School in New Jersey suspected of being behind a case of cyberbullying was deemed innocent. A key in this determination is that the boy is a poor student and is unable to spell or form correct sentences. The text messages received by the girl were more or less grammatical: a feat beyond the young boy's ability. I suppose the good news at Benjamin Franklin Middle School is that one of their students is not stalking or harassing a young girl. The bad news is that they have a 12 year old boy who cannot spell or form sentences. All things considered, I suppose Benjamin Franklin came out ahead.

Government, Charities, and the Poor

It is wisely ordained by nature that private connections should prevail over universal views and considerations, otherwise our affections and action would be dissipated and lost for want of a proper limited object.

-David Hume


In 2008, the United Way had to cut its budget. It came up $500,000 short in its fundraising goal of $12 million. It has come up short the last few years. In its mission statement, the United Way states its dedication to improving the lives of the unfortunate by providing education, income stability, and health care to those in need. While the federal government did not provide a mission statement, it too seeks to provide education, income stability, and health care to those in need.

The federal government budgeted $589 billion for social and welfare programs in 2008, (GDP in 2008 was $1.4 trillion). Only five percent of the almost $12 million raised by the United Way went to bureaucratic overhead. Only six percent of the funds raised by the Red Cross went to bureaucratic overhead. No figures were available as to how much of the $589 billion spent by the federal government went to bureaucratic overhead. The government does not keep track of those figures. Whatever the percentage was, you can be assured that it was greater than 6%.

$589 billion is a lot of money. You would think that spending $589 billion in one year would substantially improve the lives of those in need. But it didn't. Nor did the hundreds of billions of dollars spent the year before, or the billions before that. The government spends trillions and poverty grinds on. People are still hungry, homeless, and in need of medical care. National health care will be of little help to the poor. They do not have insurance so subsidies and insurance market places will make no difference to their plight.

If one tenth of the money spent by the government on the poor and those in need was instead given to proven charities such as the United Way, the Red Cross, or Habitat for Humanity, the lives of tens of millions of Americans would be significantly improved. Habitat for Humanity could provide tens of thousands of quality homes to those that need them. The government can only provide subsidized housing and rent assistance for homes and apartments for those able to navigate the bureaucratic maze. Once they receive assistance, it will be for homes and apartments in neighborhoods that no government official or lobbyist would ever consider living in.

There is no glory in letting charities and private organizations take care of the needs of Americans unless there is a photo opportunity to be had. There is no control either. The government is reluctant to let people take care of themselves and each other. The government wants to be needed. It needs to be needed. And so it insists on providing services no one on Capitol Hill would ever dream of availing themselves of.

Services provided by the government are at best cumbersome and inefficient, as anyone that has had to avail themselves of those services can testify. At worst they are bureaucratic swamps virtually impossible to navigate by those who seek to take advantage of them. The appeal of those services is the control they offer to government officials and lobbyists. For them, the prize is the power to manipulate society to their preferred goals. They measure their effectiveness by numbers and dollars. If people are helped, all the better for their newsletters and press releases.

There is little the government can offer the poor and the struggling that private organizations and charities cannot provide better. The thing is, you have to give to charities. They will not take. Government, on the other hand, will take. Many people tolerate government taking their money to help those in need because it is convenient. The poor and suffering are helped with no effort on the part of those paying their taxes. They simply pay their taxes and sleep better knowing those in need are being tended to.

When it comes down to it, liberals just don't trust people. They believe that if they take their hands off the rudder, society would revert to the petty, racist, homophobic, greedy, sexist, and selfish thing it was before they came along. If the government didn't collect taxes and help those in need, those in need would not be tended to: they would starve and sleep in the streets. People can not be trusted to take care of each other. For liberals, the only thing that can be counted to keep people from becoming heartless savages is government, specifically, a liberal government.

Charities have long existed. They have long helped people. But you have to give to charities. They do not take. You do not have to give to government. The government takes. It may be more convenient to let the government take care of those in need, but there is no virtue in it.

Tax Breaks

In this morning's Dallas Morning News was an article concerning tax breaks. In the article, it was mentioned how the earned income tax credit alone will cost the federal government roughly $49 billion in 2008. Tax beaks will "cost" the federal government billions of dollars this year. As is common, the topic of tax breaks was discussed as if the government was paying out money. It is not. Lowering taxes is simply the government taking less of what does not really belong to it in the first place.

When the government lowers taxes or grants tax breaks, the money is not lost. It certainly is not wasted. It stays with those who earned it. The money retained is either saved or spent. In either case, the economy benefits. The only thing that is lost is the government's ability to spend that money.

Many are critical of the idea of tax cuts. They argue that reducing taxes will only make the debt problem worse. They are right. But the massive federal debt is not due to deficient tax collection: tax revenue has been going up for years. It is due to reckless overspending by the government. The government has taken a spend first, collect later approach to managing the nation's affairs. The government determines how much it wants to spend before it determines how it will pay for it. Whatever it decides it wants to spend is spent. The difference between income and expenditures is worked out afterward through raising taxes and borrowing money.

Tax cuts cost the government nothing. Spending money costs the government everything. The government is not in debt because it is not collecting enough in taxes. It is in debt because it has been spending more than it has been collecting. To cite the national debt as a reason to resist tax cuts or to raise taxes is to punish tax payers for the government's fiscal recklessness.

If people are serious about demanding tax cuts, they will have to wean themselves off government and demand less from it. There is little indication that is likely to happen. Each year, people become more dependent on government and expect more from it: and that costs money. That is just fine with Washington. For many politicians in Washington, a nation dependent on government is priceless.

Obama is Shrewd.

President Obama is shrewd. He is presiding over what is becoming the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Public anger is growing in the face of the so far hapless efforts to stop the leak. Every day, things get worse. Everyday, people get angrier. Anger at BP is starting to spill over to the government, and not without reason. It is the government that was supposed to be overseeing off shore operations. It is the government that is responsible for establishing rules regarding off shore drilling and safety procedures. It is the government's job to ensure compliance with those procedures. It is Obama's job to make sure the government does its job. The Offshore Horizon blew up and sank on President Obama's watch.

Obama has decided the best way to manage the crisis is to go on the offensive. He cannot stop the leak, but he can be angry about it. And angry is what he is. "We will make BP pay" growled Obama. He swore to hold BP accountable for the disaster and vowed to ensure BP pays for it. Not just the clean up mind you. But for everything, from the loss of tourism dollars along the coast, to the losses suffered by fishermen and tour boats as well. Everyone who who is harmed by the spill will be made whole. Obama swears it.

It is not enough for Obama to issue another one of his mea culpas here. He is not going to take responsibility for this one. Lapses in airport security are one thing. Environmental disasters of Biblical proportions are another. Obama has concluded the best way out of this is for him to be even angrier than the public. He knows that if he can be angrier than the people who are taking the spill on the chin, chances are they will throw their anger in with his rather than hold it against him. They are angry, but the president is even angrier. The president is with the people. He feels their suffering and he shares their anger and frustration. It is almost as if he is as much a victim as they are.

President Obama is shrewd.

In Need of Drones

Unmanned drones are in great demand these days. They have proven to be of tremendous value in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are inexpensive to operate and provide greater flexibility that fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. They are small and stealthy and can stay aloft for much greater time than piloted aircraft. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some are even small enough to fly through a window. Their information gathering abilities are second to none.

The effectiveness, flexibility, and low cost of drones gives them enormous appeal. Some are asking that they be used to monitor pipelines. Some are requesting their use to collect storm data. Most notably, they are being requested to help monitor the U.S. Mexican border. The latest addition to the list is local police. Local police have begun requesting drones to assist them in their duties. They want to use drones to track fleeing suspects. They also want to use them to capture the license plate numbers of speeders.

Has it really come to this? Have we become so enamored with technology that we are not satisfied unless the highest and most sophisticated technologies are employed to every instance? Does every sprain require an X-ray? Does every automobile require satellite navigation? Can life be lived without an Ipod? Do we need pilotless drones to run down suspects and catch speeders?

The fundamental and eternal danger with technology is not what it can do. It is to what purposes it will be applied. The same technology that allows terrorists to be tracked at night in the forrest can track me in my back yard. Law has become a flimsy bulwark for privacy and individual liberty, and the Constitution is no longer the defense it once was. The government certainly cannot be relied upon. Neither can the public. I, for one, am going to make it a point to keep my windows closed.

Looking for a Few Victories

Things have not been going particularly well recently for President Obama. The impotency of the administration to do anything about the oil spill in the Gulf must be a tremendous frustration for an administration that has become accustomed to getting its way and staying on top of things. Despite Obama's speeches, admonitions, and threats, oil is still pouring into the Gulf. Iran has proved no less stubborn in thwarting the administration. They, like the spill in the Gulf, have proved resistant to the administration's attempts to affect the situation. Obama's numerous speeches and somber warnings have done nothing to thwart Iran's continuing nuclear efforts. The situation in Israel is worse than it has been in many years. The economy is still foundering. The situation in Afghanistan has shown little improvement. The list goes on.

Obama is increasingly indignant with those deemed to be behind the growing calamity in the Gulf. He has been delivering one harsh speech after another while his calculated anger grows. Meanwhile, the situation in the Gulf continues to deteriorate and the sense of the government's inability to do anything about it mounts.

In the Middle East, tension is growing. Iran's defiance has only increased. Obama's inability to rally erstwhile allies such as Turkey to the cause is a sign of America's decreasing influence in the region. The failure to make progress in Afghanistan reflects the limits of U.S. power to bring about its stated goals. His diffidence in pursuing U.S. interests around the world has emboldened nations like China to pursue their own agendas rather than deferring to the global principles and conventions the U.S. has long championed.

Obama seems determined to get back into the win column and shore up his image as a take charge president. To this end he is once again going after the tobacco companies and has dispatched his wife on a mission to "support the troops." Obama's move to go back to the well and make another effort to crush the tobacco industry is a politically safe and increasingly popular tactic. No one supports the tobacco industry but the people who work in it and those who are addicted to it. It is all but impossible to mount a defense for it beyond appealing to the principles of liberty and the free market.

Few any longer recognize the individual liberty to live one's life as one sees fit: especially if that lifestyle is ill advised. You cannot live your life if your lifestyle is seen to adversely affect society or economy. This amounts to a blank check to regulate the behavior of people and meddle in their lives since virtually everything a person does or doesn't do has an impact on the economy. Liberty is no longer an effective defense. Your life and health are no longer your own. You are part of a collective to which your will and appetites must be subordinated. Any appeal to free markets would be wasted on the Obama administration. The poor regard for markets of any sort held by the administration has become abundantly clear over the last two years.

Despite Obama's efforts to change America's behavior and the world, things really haven't improved. People still over eat. People are still greedy and indifferent. Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea still has nuclear weapons. The economy is still languishing. The Middle East is awash in tension and conflict. Oil still continues to flow unabated in the Gulf. His health care victory has not garnered the thanks of a grateful nation but spawned acrimony and conflict. Perhaps worst of all, people are still smoking.

Obama needs a victory. He needs to reestablish himself an effective champion of the people so he has decided forcefully vent his indignation on two industries currently held in very low regard by the public: the tobacco and oil industries. The tobacco industry has become an easy target. Concepts like free markets, liberty, and individual choice stand little chance these days against public indignation and government ire. Smokers and tobacco users will be punished for their sins. Not directly mind you, even that is a step the administration is unwilling to take, but indirectly through slight of hand. He will tax the tobacco dealers into poverty and regulate them into oblivion. The veneer of free markets and liberty must be preserved, but no longer than is absolutely necessary to eviscerate the tobacco industry and strangle its market. As for the free market, over the last two years Obama has clearly demonstrated his lack of faith in the market's ability to manage its affairs and meet the needs of the public.(In fairness, the market recently has done an extraordinary job of creating that impression.)

Little needs to be said of Obama's determination hold the energy industry accountable for the disaster in the Gulf. Despite the government's complicity in the matter: they are the ones, after all, who license and ensure compliance with environmental safety measures and spill prevention procedures, Obama is determined to keep the public eye firmly fixed on the energy industry rather than the government that is supposed to be overseeing that industry.

To refurbish his Commander in Chief image and underline his support for the military, Obama dispatched the First Lady to Camp Pendleton to meet with Marines wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq at Camp Pendleton. By dispatching the First Lady, the administration is simultaneously able to demonstrate its support for the troops and deflect criticism for its handling of the two wars. No one can criticize the First Lady for meeting with injured troops. She will not provoke questions and criticisms of the war effort. She is not to blame for their condition.

Obama is moving vigorously, as is his wont, to keep the public from focusing on any one issue or problem. Any lingering on a particular issue is to Obama's detriment. He has done much, but he has accomplished little. He knows a recent victory is worth ten past failures.