Not Your Father's Immigration

When immigration is put into historical context, the issue appears less alarming. As is commonly noted, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. It always has been.

In the 17th century, thousands of European immigrants (sometimes referred to as colonists) arrived in North America and forever changed it. Thousands more began arriving soon after. It was not long before tens of thousands had arrived. Later, hundreds of thousands began arriving. Between 1836 and 1914, over 30 million new immigrants arrived. In 1907, 1,285,350 arrived on our shores: an impressive number considering the population of the U.S. was just 87 million at the time. As was the case in earlier waves, the vast majority of those immigrants were from Europe. Indeed, Europeans comprised the majority immigrants entering the U.S. as late as 1970 when they made up 60% of all new arrivals. By 2000, the proportion of immigrants arriving from Europe had dropped to 15%.

The number of immigrants arriving in the U.S. has gone up dramatically over the decades. 250,000 immigrants arrived in the 1930's. 2.5 million arrived during the 1950's. Another 7.3 million arrived during the 1980's. From 1990 through 2,000, 10 million more arrived. In 2010, 25% of all people in the U.S. under 25 are immigrants or children of immigrants. Measuring immigrants in the U.S. is an inexact science. It is likely the numbers are higher.

All immigrations are not alike. Every wave has been different. Most were unwelcome. Each changed America; some dramatically, some subtlety. What distinguishes modern immigration from the earlier ones is that the earlier immigrations all ended. Millions of Irish immigrated to the U.S., then they stopped coming. Millions of Germans came to the U.S. But they stopped coming too. The same can be said about Chinese, Hungarian, and Dutch immigrants. Each period of mass immigration was tumultuous. There was friction and hostility between the new immigrants and the citizens of the communities in which they put down stakes. But over time, immigration subsided and the new immigrants settled in and assimilated into U.S. culture. They really didn't have a choice. Cut off from reinforcements and lacking modern communications, it was inevitable they would eventually blend with their new communities. While there are still enclaves where Dutch, Chinese, and Italian are spoken and festivals are held, the Dutch, Chinese, and Italians who came to the U.S. have long since become indistinguishable from any other American: they are American.

The current wave of immigration from Mexico is distinct from earlier waves of immigration to the U.S. in several ways. Not the least of the differences is the geographical proximity of immigrants to their home country. Also, the U.S. has become much more accommodating to immigrants. Services are provided and concessions are made that would have been unimaginable to immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Technological advances, like television, radio, telephones, and the Internet all work against assimilation by allowing new immigrants to effortlessly retain cultural and emotional ties to their homeland.

Perhaps the biggest difference between current immigration and earlier waves is that it is not stopping. In 1970, immigrants were 4.7% of the population. That number has been going up steadily. In 2010, the percentage had risen to 10%. It will keep going up. There is no way of stopping it: at least no civilized way to stop it. But it can be brought under control.

To get a sense of the magnitude of immigration, consider California. In 1970, European Americans comprised 80% of the population of that state. In 2008, that percentage had dropped to 42.3%. A change of that size cannot be overlooked or shrugged off. Getting immigration under control does not mean machine guns, mass deportations and concentration camps. It means enforcing laws that already exist and taking steps to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.

Immigration is not a force of nature. It is a human phenomenon. Something can be done about it. The question is what. We cannot know what we should do unless we talk about it. We cannot talk about it if one side is continually accused of racism and xenophobia. It is possible to have a discussion about immigration without resorting to insults and invectives. It is uncommon, but it is possible.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, 25% of the U.S. population will be of Hispanic decent. While some current studies report that immigration, legal and otherwise, is slowing, mostly due to the poor economy, it is not stopping. It will never stop. We are conducting a social experiment of immense proportions that is transforming our nation. Nevertheless we are told not to worry and that everything will work out fine: it always has before. But this is not our father's immigration. It is something new and unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. That is why so many are apprehensive.

We cannot stop immigration. We should not stop immigration. But we should get it under control. In order to get it under control we need to try to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is by definition uncontrolled immigration.

Slow Going in Afghanstan

In this morning's Dallas Morning News, there was an article written by Rod Nordland about Afghanistan and the deteriorating security situation there. The U.S. has been hoping to be able to turn over security in the country to Afghan forces. It has been training Afghan soldiers to that end for several years. The transition has been going more slowly than planned. What was of particular interest in the story was the photograph that accompanied it.

In the photo, a U.S. soldier and his Afghan counterpart are in an alley, their attention focused down the street. The U.S. soldier lays prone, looking through his sight, weapon ready to fire. The Afghan soldier is standing in the street straddling his weapon, arms folded. The photo could be hung in any basic training barracks as an example of how not to man a position: and people wonder why we have been in Afghanistan so long.

That U.S. soldier will be going home soon. When he does, that Afghan soldier will be standing in the street by himself. At least he didn't have his hands in his pockets. Some of the training must be sticking.

The Wrong Lesson

As the U.S. economy continues to languish and the federal debt mounts, debate swirls around how the government should respond. Democrats continue to urge more deficit spending. When in a pinch, the example of FDR spending the U.S. out of the Great Depression is brought to the fore. Yet despite FDR's impressive New Deal spending in the years leading up to WWII, the results were mixed. More important was the massive deficit spending that occurred as the war picked up steam and the economic boom that followed. There is a school of thought that understands deficit spending as a form of investment. Even though the economic crisis of the 1930's and increased federal spending that followed can be compared and evaluated with the current situation, the effect of WWII on the economy cannot.

The real explosion in deficit spending by FDR came in response to WWII. Certainly, a great deal of money was spent during the depression. The U.S. debt increased by $33 billion fighting it in the 1930's. But that is dwarfed by what was spent fighting WWII. Over the course of the war, the debt grew by $222 billion. During the Great Depression, millions of people were put to work, but they were put to work building dams and paving roads. During WWII, people were put to work making and building things, real things like ships, tanks, and trucks while gaining skills that would be useful after the war. Millions of men were put to work in the military and merchant marine. Millions of women were put to work making and doing things that had been done by men who were no longer available to do them. Even people of the fringe of U.S. society like African Americans gained employment in record numbers.

After the war, the U.S. economy continued to thrive as it labored to rebuild Europe and Japan and tend to needs neglected during the war. The industrial capacity gained in the war served the U.S. well. Millions of dollars were made and millions of people were put to work making and selling cars, construction material, and machinery to a world in desperate need of such things. Service men who had been taken off the farm and out of small towns and mills had a taste of the world and headed off to college to pursue careers and opportunities unimaginable to them prior to the war.

Yes, government spending was important during the Great Depression. But while it kept many Americans above water it did little else. It was WWII that pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression and created an economic boom that lasted decades, not the New Deal. The government spent mightily during the depression: more than it had ever spent before. But it was the spending caused by fighting a world war that made the real difference and transformed the U.S. into a modern economic power. It was the economic boom that followed the war and the explosion of college educated workers caused by the GI bill that created the middle class that has become the paradigm of U.S. prosperity, not the New Deal

The wistfulness of many for the New Deal is just that. To point to the New Deal and ignore WWII is a common flaw on the part of those nostalgic for the days when government expansion was at its height. The transformation of the U.S. into a progressive and cosmopolitan culture was a result of the changes brought about by a generation of college educated Americans no longer limited to the horizon afforded by life on a farm or in a factory. That transformation was not brought about by politicians, bureaucrats and planners. It was brought about by people seeking to improve themselves and their lives.

It is true the government was instrumental in bringing about that college educated generation through the GI bill. But the GI bill was only effective in conjunction with a generation that wanted to attend college and take advantage of the opportunities that education would offer. But there is a lesson here as well. Government is much less effective when it comes to making people do what they are disinclined to do. Government cannot create engineers no matter what it spends. It can only help people who want to be engineers become engineers.

Many hail the New Deal as a model for stimulating the economy and urge a reprise. Few credit world war. But one cannot use the New Deal as a model and ignore WWII. The New Deal mitigated the suffering caused by the Great Depression. It did not end it. If we hope to see an economic recovery even approaching the one that followed WWII we need to find away to spur an explosion of economic activity like that which followed the war. Raising taxes and expanding government are not the ways to do it.

Government spending dropped dramatically after WWII. We are not fighting a world war. Even if the economy recovers due, or despite, the record spending of the Obama administration, government will not shrink after the crisis is over. It will remain and the costs and bureaucracy associated with it will remain as well. There will be no after.

Yes We Can!

President Obama has taken his political revival show on the road. He has been energetically stumping for Democrats across the nation. His political ambitions depend on democrats keeping the majority in both houses. As the likelihood of a republican victory in the Fall increases, so does Obama's stridency. Speaking at a rally in Milwaukee, Obama criticized Republicans as the party of "no we can't" much to the delight of the crowd.

Obama's ridicule of republican opposition to his policies should not be dismissed out of hand by GOP hopefuls looking for victory in the Fall. To the contrary, there is much to it that should be embraced. Obama and the democrats claim that they can raise taxes without hampering the economy. They claim that they can increase the size and scope of federal government without impinging upon liberty. They claim they can expand health care to include everyone who needs it without bankrupting the nation or compromising quality or availability. They claim that the government can continue to run up monstrous deficits without undermining the economy. It can't.

Everything is not possible. Government cannot keep spending money it does not have. Government cannot give people everything they want or do for them everything they want done. Obama tells us we can keep on spending. The numbers tell us we can't. Obama tells us the government can keep on regulating without hampering the economy. History tells us that is not the case. Obama believes we can tax, spend, and legislate ourselves to prosperity. Someone needs to tell him we can't. Obama frequently refers to what he likes to call "the failed policies of the past", but he is blind to the failed policies of the present.

To argue that the United States cannot sustain its current level of spending is not a policy position or a campaign tactic. It is simply a fact. According to the early polls, the race between Democrats and reality will be a close one.

Golfing for the Troops.

The Fields of Honor Foundation is a group that seeks to provide scholarships for the children and spouses of military men and women disabled, injured or killed serving the nation. The group was inaugurated in 2007. On Labor Day, the group will be holding a celebrity golf game, Patriot Golf Day, to raise money for the foundation. Former president George W. Bush will be among the notables participating in the event.

It has become customary for groups seeking to raise funds for a cause to make it as easy and comfortable as possible for celebrities to attend. Think of Hollywood fundraisers. Celebrities dress up and attend galas where they are feted and fawned over in the name of some charity or cause. They are not asked to do anything in particular for the cause. They are just asked to show up and look fabulous. Everybody wins. Celebrities get publicity and acquire a sheen of compassion and social awareness. Organizers get the satisfaction of throwing a ritzy event. The poor, the ill, and the lamed get some money raised on their behalf.

For people such as athletes and politicians whose fame does not lend itself as well to swank parties and posh events, golf is a popular method of raising money. Like Hollywood galas, in golf events everybody wins. The charity or cause hosting the event gets publicity. The unfortunate get some money raised on their behalf, and the participants, in addition to getting some publicity themselves, have the satisfaction of helping people in need while spending an afternoon on the golf course.

So on Labor Day, the children and spouses of killed and disabled troops will have some money raised to help them attend college, and former President Bush will have an afternoon on the golf course. After starting the war in which the troops whose families he is raising money for were injured, maimed, and killed, the least President Bush can do is play a game of golf for them. I mean it. It is the least he can do short of taking a nap or tending to the garden.

Many people live in a strange world where misfortune and injustice can be ameliorated through playing golf or attending a party. I wish I lived in that world.

It is in the Rules

Representative Eddie Johnson of Texas took steps to ease the controversy surrounding the revelation that she used funds from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to award scholarships to friends and family. She used personal funds to reimburse the foundation for what she had spent. Johnson claimed that she had no idea that the Foundation had rules prohibiting the dispersal of funds to family members. "Had I known that this was against the law I wouldn't have done it" she said. Johnson is a member of the Black Caucus Foundation. Perhaps she should get around to reading its rules sometime.

"The debt has been repaid in full" said Johnson. Perhaps it has, in a sense. By using the Black Caucus Foundation funds to help friends and family, Johnson violated the foundation's rules against nepotism. Moreover, the students who received the funds were ineligible since they did not live in Johnson's district. Repaying the Black Caucus is only a step on the part of Johnson to get out from under the controversy. While the funds have been repaid, the impropriety remains. You cannot just write a check for that.

This is certainly not the first time a member of Congress has run afoul of a rule made by a committee on which they sit. The defense of choice in those instances is ignorance: they were not aware of the rule or that it applied to them. To make this defense is tantamount to admitting to incompetence. Another popular defense is that the error was made unbeknown to them by a member of their staff. This is also an admission of incompetence, or at least mismanagement, since members of Congress are responsible for their staff. In the minds of many congressmen, it is better to be seen as incompetent than corrupt. There is a much higher tolerance for incompetent politicians than for corrupt ones. Johnson's political future depends on that remaining so.

Questionable Victory

The city of Dallas recently won a victory in court concerning its new policy of allowing cabs that run exclusively on natural gas to skip to the head of the line at Love Field. The victory was hailed as an important step towards reducing air pollution and lessening America's dependence on oil.

The problem is that many independent cab drivers and small taxi companies cannot afford to switch their cars over to natural gas or purchase new cabs that do. Their cars will continue to run on gasoline and they will have to wait in line longer to obtain a fare. As a result, cabs that contribute to air pollution and do nothing to reduce America's oil consumption will have to idle longer waiting in line for a fare and burning more gasoline and generating more pollution as they do. I suppose if the new policy is a success air quality in Dallas will improve, if only by a fraction. But its unemployment rate will rise, if only by a fraction.

14% Idiots

A recent Newsweek poll revealed some alarming news about the mind of the American electorate. In the poll, republicans were asked if they believed that Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists and wants to impose Islamic law around the world." 38% percent believed that it is probably true. Another 38% believed it was probably not true. 14% of republicans polled believed it was "definitely true." According to the results, the majority of republicans harbor significant doubts about Obama's religion and motivation.

The most worrisome part of the poll is that people were not simply asked if they believe Obama sympathizes with Islam. They were asked if he sympathizes with Islamic fundamentalists, which are a breed apart. It is the fundamentalists that want to make women wear burkhas, impose strict Islamic law, and destroy the West, not the rank and file.

Obama is one of the most liberal presidents the United States has ever had. If he is a Muslim, he is a very poor one. He has consistently supported abortion rights. He has labored to expand rights for gays and lesbians. He has successfully nominated two women to the Supreme Court. One of those women is Jewish. On every social issue that has arisen since his inauguration, Obama has stood firmly on the left. His appointments to the Supreme Court have impeccable liberal credentials and are solidly against even the most subtle encroachment of religion upon public life. Obama could not be elected dog catcher in Saudi Arabia. Despite all this and more, a great many Americans suspect Obama might secretly be not just a Muslim, but a supporter of fundamentalist Islam. If I had to guess, I would say, if anything, he is a closet Episcopalian.

A recent Newsweek poll revealed that 14% of republicans are idiots and that the majority of republicans should keep their opinions to themselves on the subject of Obama's religious sympathies lest they appear to be idiots too.

The Heavy Burden of Vanity

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist Jennie Sawyer took up the common lament among women about the pressure put upon them to look beautiful and young. Feeling the stress from advertisements, commercials, and magazine covers, many women respond to the taunts of beautiful, fit young women in skimpy clothing with emotions ranging from embarrassment to to anger. Sawyer is no different. But, while women may suffer more acutely from swimwear advertisements and beauty layouts, they do not suffer alone. People everywhere suffer from the taunts of ads.

Many Americans, myself included, are hounded mercilessly by images and advertisements for luxury cars, fine wines, and expensive watches: all carefully crafted to make those without such items feel inferior. But one needn't limit oneself to luxury ads. Living in Texas, one measure of a man's virility is the size of the truck he drives. Throughout the day I am harassed with advertisements depicting handsome, muscular, rugged men with full heads of hair doing all sorts of rugged, manly things and driving rugged, manly trucks. (In an act of machismo, one such man almost ran over my dog yesterday.) Nor are men free from the pressures of physical beauty. I do not recall ever seeing a short, pudgy, balding man in an ad for cologne or BMWs. Even the pest control guy and the auto mechanic are handsome and muscular in ads. I have seen Michael Jordan's ad for men's briefs. I have not seen Charles Barkley in any such ad. Neither have I ever seen a fat man with a hairy back shaving in a razor commercial. Hair care, grooming, and physical fitness know no gender.

Yes, women suffer from advertisements that hold out improbable goals for physical beauty. Men do as well. But men also suffer from advertisements that depict physical prowess and financial success. Men do not have to worry about simply being old and fat. They also have to worry about being poor, impotent, of low status, not having a big enough truck and, of course, going bald. As for thin, beautiful women, while women may be pressured to be one, successful men are expected to have one.

The real issue is not why men and women are subjected to images promoting unrealistic ideas of beauty or status. The question is why do we feel pressured by them? You can be assured Mother Teresa never lost a moment of sleep due to her wrinkles and that Ghandi never rued not having a Dodge Ram pick up.

Many, if not most of the burdens of living in a society such as ours are chosen. Once we move beyond the realm of what is needed, we enter into an infinite realm of desire and vanity. If one finds the burdens of trying to be young, fit, rich and appealing too heavy to bear, one can put them down. That so few are able or willing to do so is testimony to the fact that is has always been more difficult to give up one's ego than to satisfy it. I suspect that is one reason why Mother Teresa is a saint and the rest of us are not.

Is there a Correlation?

In a report issued Tuesday, the National Association of Realtors stated that July home sales in the U.S. have fallen over 25% to their lowest level in over ten years. Coincidentally, tax credits for new home buyers ended in July.

When the tax credits were in affect, home buyers benefited. Home builders benefited. Realtors benefited. Neighborhoods benefited. The economy benefited. Arguably, only the government did not benefit. I say arguably because it is not certain that government lost. They may have lost some tax revenue, but new homes and residents are not quite the burden many might think. Those new residents will have to buy things. The people who built and sold those homes made money doing so. They will pay taxes on the money they made. They will also buy things with the money they made. The people who sell things will make money. The government makes money when people buy and sell things: local government anyway.

Now that the tax credits have expired, national home sales have declined 27.2% since June and now stand at their lowest point since 1999. Mark Dozier, chief economist with the Real Estate Center, said matter of factly that the decline in sales "just means that the tax credit induced a higher than normal sales volume and we should expect sales to be lower without the credit." In other words, lower taxes boosted the market. Now that taxes are higher, the market has cooled.

Tax breaks and credits have served to stimulate a variety markets and activities across the U.S. Tax increases have retarded them. With the expiration of the tax credits, the government is hoping to recoup some of its losses. It is almost as if the government believes that money it surrendered in tax breaks belongs to them and was more like a loan than a gift: if allowing people to keep their own money can be construed as a gift. Gifts once given belong to those who receive them. Tax breaks are not gifts. They do not belong to the tax payers. The government expects to get its money back.

There is a correlation between lower taxes and economic activity. If the government wants to encourage a particular activity, it lowers taxes. When the government wants to discourage something, it raises taxes. This correlation, unfortunately, is often only recognized in proportion to its convenience.

It is true that lower taxes curtail the government's ability to do its job. There is a down side to that since some of what the government needs to do is important. Roads, and national defense for example are things best left to the government. But there is also an upside in increased economic activity. The trick is finding the balance. Key to finding that balance is determining just what it is that people want and expect from government and how much they are willing to pay. The best way to find that out is to ask them.

Left to its own, in a choice between a vibrant economy or big government, Washington will take big government every time.

Making Progress

After aircraft were used in a dastardly surprise attack on the U.S. in which many thousands of Americans lost their lives, America went to war against a fanatical enemy. There were a large number of residents and citizens from that nation residing in America at the time. Those residents and citizens, as well as those who simply traced their origins to the country who attacked, came to be viewed with deep suspicion, even hatred. Their patriotism was questioned to the point where many of them were rounded up and put into special camps where the U.S. could keep an eye on them.

The majority of those put into the camps were loyal Americans. More than a few wound up in the military where they served their nation honorably: some with great distinction. In time, the U.S. came to see its error and realized it had misjudged and overreacted in its treatment of those who were rounded up and scorned. Very, very few of those rounded up were in fact enemies of the United States. Still, it took a long time for Americans to look on those people with anything but dislike and distrust.

I am writing of the Japanese of course. After Pearl Harbor, until recently the most terrible attack on the U.S., Japanese in the U.S. were viewed with suspicion and hostility. They were offensively caricatured and mocked in the press and vilified throughout the country. For many, even being suspected of being Japanese was enough to incur wrath and the risk of being rounded up and placed in a camp. (My great Uncle was called in for an interview and possible relocation to one such camp because his last name was construed as being of Japanese origin. When a big, strong Polish man walked though the door, they quickly realized their mistake). Even after we had had our revenge on the Japanese, the hatred remained for long time, and still does in some parts. It is unimaginable that a Shinto shrine would have even have been proposed in the U.S. for decades after Pearl Harbor.

Many years later, the U.S. came to see the error of its actions and that it had made a mistake in viewing all Japanese as potential enemies, less still its religion. We have even apologized for our treatment of Japanese Americans. It was vowed that the U.S. would never resort to such hysteria again. We have almost succeeded in upholding that vow.

While the government has been careful to avoid portraying its current opponent in general racial or religious terms, many in the media, and among the public, have had no reservation in doing so. Not a few are making a good living from stoking the notion. They are the ones apt to see the current struggle as a war against Islam, or at least against "radical" Islam. But, as the current controversy over the proposed Mosque in New York illustrates, that distinction is rarely made. In the minds of many Americans, we are at war with Islam and because we are at war with it, Islam and its adherents cannot be trusted.

Mosques and Muslims are viewed with great suspicion. Even leaving aside the proposal to build a mosque in New York near Ground Zero, it is likely that a proposal to build a mosque or madrasah anywhere in the U.S. or an attempt by Muslim communities to adhere to their traditions would be viewed with trepidation, if not hostility. We have made progress though. No one is proposing rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps: except on facebook and Fox News. We have come a long way from the days of Manzanar; just not quite as far as many would like to think.

My only beef with Islam is I want Constantinople back. If not Constantinople, at least the Haggai Sophia.

Who Really Pays?

The state legislature in Austin, Texas is preparing to take up immigration legislation when it meets later this year. It is predicted there will be immigration laws proposed similar to the tough new laws enacted in Arizona. People on both sides are bracing for a fight. Because of the often delicate nature of the issue, both sides prefer to focus on the economic costs of immigration. Fortunately, there is much to focus on.

There is a significant difference in the debate at the national and state levels. At the national level, immigration is an issue on the agenda. While there is rhetoric about the need to address the issue, there is little sense of urgency. With elections in the fall, many members on both sides are reluctant to get into a serious debate on the topic. Concern over the issue is most often expressed in generalities, such as the need to "do something", or "reform" immigration laws.
At the state level, things are more concrete. The Texas state legislature is preparing to take up a bill similar to the one recently passed in Arizona. The House State Affairs Chairman, Burt Solomons, stated that the committee is preparing legislation that will "focus on what the real costs are for state services." Those costs are significant.

The director for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas told the committee that the cost of illegal immigration to Texas is nearly $100 million a year. Money is tight in Texas at the moment. Texas is facing a budget deficit of $1.3 billion over the next fiscal year. The budget will have to be cut. By law, TX must pass a balanced budget. The state constitution requires it. Every dollar spent on immigration is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere, and that $100 million is sorely needed elsewhere.

The federal government can spend as much money as it wants, whether it has it or not. The states cannot. States like Texas can only spend the money they have. To meet the rising costs of illegal immigration, Texas must either raise taxes or cut spending. Either option costs the residents of Texas. As illegal immigration increases, the costs associated with it increase.

Because the effects and costs of illegal immigration are more keenly felt by the states, states have begun taking action. While the immigration issue for many is an abstract issue of rights, language and ethnicity, it is also a concrete issue of dollars and cents. While Washington debates and postures on the issue, states are writing checks and spending money they don't have or is needed elsewhere. But when states and local governments take action on the issue, they are widely condemned, and even taken to court.

Many of the costs borne by state governments are mandated by the federal government. In the case of illegal immigration, states are compelled to pay much of the costs for those here in violation of federal law. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, last year the federal government spent $28.6 billion in illegal immigrant related costs. State and local governments spent $84.2 billion. Lawn care companies and poultry farms might come out ahead when it comes to illegal immigration,, but states and cities don't. If Washington is unwilling or unable to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it is only fair that the burden of paying for the breach of immigration law should fall on the federal government. If the federal government is not willing to act, it should not grudge the states for trying to reduce the burden resulting from the failure to enforce federal law by enforcing it themselves.

Usually, if a state ignored federal law, there would be a swift reaction from Washington. Certainly, if a state flouted federal law there would be a stern response. Oddly, immigration appears to one case where the federal government at times seems less concerned that the law be enforced than that it be ignored. It even goes so far as to threaten states that seek to enforce it.

Given the scale of the problem, one would think that any help states and cities could give to the federal government would be welcomed, not scorned. But one would be wrong. If immigration law is onerous or objectionable, it should be changed, not ignored.

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.