Building the Titanic.

In 1910, government spending accounted for 8% of the U.S. economy. Government spending for 2010 will be 48.48% of the U.S. GDP. That is the highest it has been since 1945 when it was 52.9% of the GDP. In 1945, the U.S. was fighting a world war. After the war, government spending dropped dramatically to 7.3% in 1948. It is extraordinarily unlikely government spending today will drop anytime soon. Even if it does, it will not drop significantly. Unlike in the 1940's, the U.S. is not fighting a world war. It is not even fighting a cold war. Counting the War on Terror, the 2010, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP in 2010 was 13%. The defense department could be abolished and the U.S. would still be in the red by almost $1 trillion

Government spending as a percentage of the GDP has risen over the last two years from 37.12% to 44.48%. That money was spent to prop up the economy and increase the size of government. According to the GPO, in 2012 the gross federal debt will be 100.6% of the GDP. The good news is that percentage is expected to drop to only 99.8%by 2014. If the federal government can exercise some fiscal restraint, that .2% can be used to start paying down the debt. At least it would be a good gesture.

What makes this grim news all the more grim is the extent to which the U.S. is dependent on the federal government. More than ever before the economy, and the public, are dependent on the federal government for their well being. Under the Obama administration, millions of Americans now rely upon government for their cars, their houses, their jobs, and their health care. Whole industries are being supported by Washington. If the federal government collapses under the weight of the growing national debt, it will take the nation down with it.

It didn't have to be this way. The federal government, as it was designed by the Framers, was to be a small and limited thing. It was created to do only those few things that the states could not do for themselves, e.g. provide for the defense of the nation, print money, and oversee trade. Neither the states nor their citizens relied upon Washington for their survival. For most of the nation, the federal government was something heard of but not seen or felt. There was little Washington could do to affect the lives or livelihoods of citizens short of starting a war. Indeed, Washington could have sunk into the swamp it was built on and most Americans would not have felt its loss.

The federal government began growing the day after the Constitution was signed, but it was not until the 20th century that it fully hit its stride. Since the New Deal of the 1930's, the federal government has expanded at a relentless pace. It is now the largest and single most powerful force in American life. There is no one and nothing outside its influence and grasp. There is no organization, institution or industry beyond its reach. Virtually nothing can be built, bought or sold without the government's approval or involvement. The government's move into health care was simply part of a long tradition of government expansion. Many will not rest until the federal government has filled every nook and cranny of American life. The government will have to keep expanding to meet the restless ambitions of those who would change the world.

America's fate is now tied to the federal government. Federalism was once a source of strength in the U.S., like bulkheads in a ship. That is no longer so. Those bulkheads that have not been removed have been weakened. We are now sailing like the Titanic. As large, luxurious and powerful as the ship may be, one iceberg can threaten to sink it. With the fiscal recklessness in Washington, we are steering straight for the icebergs.

The Other Costs of Immigration

Most of the debate concerning immigration today revolves around concrete and quantitative matters such as demographics, statistics, and economic analyses. These are easy to identify and measure. But there are other costs to immigration that are usually ignored when not evaded: the social and psychological costs of immigration. The psychological dislocation and social anomie that results from rapidly changing demographics is a subject rarely, if ever discussed. When it is discussed, it is most often treated as an abstract social phenomenon of interest to some and concern to others. When it emerges from the public, it is usually dismissed as backwardness or condemned as racism or ignorance. This mistake is a cause of much of the bitterness and condescension on display over immigration reform.

Coined by social theorist Emile Dirkheim in the 1950s, anomie is the condition of alienation caused by the disintegration of social codes. When the common mores and social codes of society begin to erode, the individual starts to lose his bearings. Things that he has taken for granted and values and customs that he has always relied upon as guides begin to disappear, and with them his comfort in the orderliness and predictability of his life. Such disorientation is commonly sneered at by advocates of social change as rooted in fear and ignorance or predicated upon simple routine and habit: shortcomings to be overcome in the new order. They feel it is the task of the indiviual to keep pace with society.

Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of numbers, costs and benefits. Any movement beyond the numbers is viewed suspiciously: as if beyond numbers lies only fear, emotion, and racism. But social disorientation caused by large and swift changes in demographics is a very real phenomenon. It is not a product of economic calculation as many on the right would have us believe. Nor is it a phantom or a product of ignorance and hate as many on the left would have us believe. It is a human response. It is human nature. It is very real.

Many on the Right believe that most things can and should be reduced to economic costs and benefits. Immigration is evaluated in terms of how it affects the economy. Where it is determined to benefit the economy, it is embraced. Opposition is viewed as ignorance and short sightedness. It is to be overcome through enlightening the public as to its self interest. They believe immigration is good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for America. Therefore, immigration is good.

Many on the Left would have us believe that immigration is a matter of justice and fairness. They believe that immigration adds to the diversity of America. Because they believe that diversity is good, they feel immigration is good. Opposition is scorned as chauvinism or bigotry and is to be overcome preferably through indoctrination, or "education" as they often call it. Where indoctrination fails, compulsion through the law is relied upon.

Both sides commonly overlook human nature. They see society and culture as malleable and citizens as products of society. Change the law and you change society. Change society, and you change men. In order to change the law, one must control the government. That is why political contests have become more bitter and hard fought as the government grows ever larger in size and power. The more government controls, the more whoever is running the government controls. The more whoever is running the government controls, the higher the stakes in each election. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the contest.

At the bottom of the unease over immigration is human nature. People need predictability and familiarity. People need to believe that tomorrow will be like today and that others will be the same tomorrow as they are today. Without predictability, society becomes clamorous and confusing. Massive immigration undermines familiarity and predictability. Communities and neighborhoods change. Language changes. Customs and traditions change. Things that were once assumed or taken for granted suddenly become problematic. Some relish a carnival of langauges and customs. Most do not. Most people prefer predictabilty and tradition.

Where society is in constant flux it is difficult for many to adjust. When society changes more rapidly than people can adjust, resentment often results as people increasingly behold a world that is leaving them behind. Continuous immigration on the scale we are experiencing today provides little opportunity for communities and individuals to adjust. The resistance to change, and the slowness of people to adjust to it, as well as the resentment at having to change is more often attributed to ignorance and racism than natural human response. As is too often the case, when progressives find themselves in conflict with society, they insist that society yield.

Anomie is not the product of ignorance. It is part of human nature. It occurs in the wake of the detachment caused by changing circumstances that undermine the regularity and predictability of life. As the social world becomes increasingly unfamiliar to the individual, the individual no longer identifies with it. It becomes foreign to him; something that he must confront rather than participate in. Society becomes a challenge to the individual if he is to retain his identity and sense of self. The more quickly society changes, the greater the challenge.

Resentment at social change is not caused by racism, though racism can, and often does, contribute to it. It is the result of the frustration felt by those who feel they have no control over their lives and communities. It is the resentment by American citizens who feel that they are the ones being asked to assimilate and adapt to a new culture. They chafe at being the ones expected to adjust to meet new circumstances and meet the demands of a new culture they did not ask for and in many cases do not welcome. Asking people what immigration policy should be rather than telling them would be a good step towards giving people a sense of control over the issue. That sense of control would go a long way towards easing the resentment and bitterness that attend it.

Addressing public unease with immigration would require moving beyond numbers and statistics and entering the subjective world in which people live. But that is a messy and cluttered place filled with feelings, emotions, and sensibilities. It is a world opaque to reason and resistant to social planning. It is a world many wish did not exist. But it does exist and it must be taken into account. To do otherwise will only increase the alienation of the public from the government.

Immigration; Legal and Otherwise.

I suspect that if the Native Americans had a chance to do it all over, they would do a much better job protecting their borders and controlling immigration.

The Politics of Protest

Across the nation, protests continued over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Protesters with nothing to fear and nothing to lose from the new law took to the streets from Maine to California. The law makes it illegal to be in Arizona illegally. Being in the country illegally is already a violation of federal law.

Many are angered by the problematic nature of enforcing the law which they say will unfairly target Hispanics. Arizona has already made changes to the law to ease those concerns. Authorities will be restricted from using race or ethnicity as a basis for checking immigration status. Furthermore, checking immigration status will be in line with normal police procedure, the checking of a person's status can only be subsequent to police questioning. It cannot be the basis for it. Nevertheless, opponents of the law are not mollified. They have little faith in the police to adhere to the guidelines. They claim that the new law will lead to racial profiling. Groups across the nation have called for a boycott of all things Arizona. Some in Congress are calling on Major League Baseball to move its All Star Game from Arizona where it is scheduled to be played in 2011. According to former state senator Alfredo Gonzales, the goal of the boycott is to "is to as quickly as possible bring a shocking stop to the economy of Arizona." This from a person who once swore to serve the state he now seeks to undermine.

Many are also upset in the audacity of Arizona to pass such a law. They are outraged that Arizona has acted to put a stop to illegal immigration. Arizona state Representative Ed Ableser scoffed at Arizona's attempt to curb illegal immigration claiming that Arizona's move has "raised the bar on the definition of crazy and ridiculous."

The new law is popular in Arizona. In fact, 47% of Hispanics in Arizona support the measure. Arizona is one of the states most affected by the burdens and costs of illegal immigration. Some estimate that at present there are 283,000 illegal immigrants residing in Arizona. Others put the number as high as 500,000. More arrive every day. Arizona has a population of only 6.6 million so the number is more keenly felt than it would be elswhere. The growing rate of illegal immigration reflects not immigration so much as migration. Despite the common argument that illegal immigration is a boon to the U.S., The Federation for Immigration Reform estimates that the the net loss to Arizona from illegal immigration is $1.3 billion a year. It represents a household burden of $700 per natural born resident, regardless of ethnicity. One hospital near the Mexican border reported that its Emergency Room costs for treating illegal immigrants rose from $40,000 to $350,000 over the last four years.

People nationwide who are not affected in the least by the new law are clamoring for its repeal. For them it is a matter of principal. They object to immigration laws in general and see them as unfair and biased towards Mexicans. The fact that Swedes, Russians, Brazilians, and Malaysians are also subject to the new law is entirely lost on them. For them, any person who is able to sneak into the country has a right to be here. Every one who already resides in the U.S. illegally has a right to be here as well. Any attempt to curb illegal immigration or enforce the law is an abridgment of that right.

The zealousness and spite of pro immigration groups was on display in many of the protests. Demonstrators waved Mexican flags and shouted insults and obscenities at those they suspected of harboring contrary views: always a sure fire method of attracting sympathy for the cause. The anger of the protesters reflects a disdain for democracy. They rarely tolerate views contrary to their own. When their goals are thwarted they quickly turn to throwing tantrums and abusing those who disagree with them. They have little respect or patience for the legislative process. They know what they want and they want it now. They cannot understand how there can be principled opposition to their point of view. They suspect all opposition to be based on prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness. If they can gather enough people and yell loud enough, they expect the opposition to yield. If the state house refuses their demands, they turn to the courts. Appealing to voters is usually a last resort.

It is becoming more and more common for people to refuse to accept a loss. The new law in Arizona was passed with the support of majority of the people in Arizona. If the opponents of the new law can gather enough voters to elect enough legislators to change the law, they can do so. It is the nature of politics that some people always lose. It is also the nature of politics that no loss is ever permanent: unless, of course, courts are relied upon for victory. Supporters of untrammeled immigration lost in Arizona and people are upset. They do not like to lose. No one does. But because they lost in the statehouse, they are free to make their case in the next election. In the mean time they are obliged to obey the law.

When passion is high, some people are quick resort to the politics of protest. They rely on coercion to achieve their goals. Such methods are a danger to democracy. They want to punish the people of Arizona for adopting a law they object to. They are willing to damage the economy of Arizona as revenge for it passing a law they oppose. They threaten to do the same to any state that seeks to limit illegal immigration. Activists and protesters are trying to force Arizona to repeal the law. They are threatening to do everything they can to harm Arizona and any other state that adopts similar laws. They have little interest in what the voters in Arizona or elsewhere want. This is democracy as they understand it.

Batman on the Job.

In a bold move, President Obama announced that he had named Batman as Special Envoy. Bat Man's first stop was Cuba where he will try to improve relations between Washington and its long time adversary. "We have decided to see what we can do about mending our relationship with Havana" said one administration official. There was no word on what would be discussed in the talks. Bat Man's next stop is the Middle East where it is hoped he will be able to make progress on many of the thorny issues the U.S. faces in the region. According to an unnamed source in Washington, "Bat Man can be very persuasive. People listen to Batman. People respect Batman. He is a valuable asset to the United States. Nobody pushes the Bat Man around."

Cuban leaders in the U.S. welcomed the move. "If Washington had sent anyone else, we never would have agreed to the talks. We know the Batman is honest and fair. He can be counted on to do the right thing."

Oops. They thought it was dead.

Recently, a fetus in Italy that had been removed from its host was discovered not to be a fetus at all, but a baby. It was a baby because it was alive. A priest was praying over the recently discarded tissue when, to his shock, he noticed it was alive. He quickly notified hospital staff who tended to the infant they had recently, and unsuccessfully, tried to kill. Not only did the infant survive the abortion attempt, it stayed alive for another 20 hours. Despite the efforts of hospital staff, and the resiliency of the newborn baby, the abortion was ultimately successful. The infant died.

The fetus had been aborted at 22 weeks. Italian law allows abortion up until 20 weeks. Fetal tissue can be removed past 22 weeks if it is deemed necessary to the health of its host. Italian authorities are looking into the matter. It is being investigated as possible manslaughter. If it is shown that the aborted fetus was not in fact a fetus, but a child, charges could be filed. According to authorities, if nothing else, "we are dealing with a very grave case of abandonment."

What is of note is how the fetus came to be a child. Nothing had changed about the fetus. It was physiologically the same as it was when it was in its mother's womb. Essentially, the only thing that had changed was its location. It is almost as if the fetus was magically transformed into a child once it had been shifted 18 inches or so from inside the mother to outside. Development and viability often have less to do with the distinction than where the fetal matter happens to be at the moment.

This is not the only case in which fetal tissue survives the attempt to remove it. There are other cases. It is an interesting phenomenon. When abortions go wrong, sometimes the result is a baby. Modifying abortion laws would easily take care of the matter. It would simply be a matter of extending the legal definition of what a fetus is to include recently removed fetal tissue, whether it is functioning or not. No need to be squeamish. It is not as if we are killing babies.

If authorities are unsuccessful in their attempts to bring charges against the hospital, they should at least charge the physician who attempted the abortion with malpractice. What kind of doctor cannot kill a baby?

Too Much Information

In Oklahoma on Tuesday, the state legislature voted to override the governor's veto of two abortion bills. Among other things, one of the new laws will require doctors to perform an ultrasound and require the patient be provided with a description of the fetus and the procedure that will be used to remove it. The governor evidently believes the measure provides too much information for the patient to have to listen to. The governor's action seems to be based on the assumption that the more information the patient has about an abortion, the more difficult will be the decision to get one. Abortion rights groups are already moving to challenge the law: a curious move.

The reason this is curious is that it is a general assumption that the more information a patient has concerning a medical procedure, the better that patient will be able to decide whether to undergo it. Typically, a patient about to undergo a medical procedure is given a detailed description of the procedure that will be used and what it is hoped will be result. If, for example, a tumor was to be removed or a knee repaired, the doctor would describe the nature of the procedure and explain how he was going to go about it. Where x-rays are useful in explaining the problem, they are shown to the patient. Very few patients would refuse to look at x-rays or decline information offered by a doctor as to what is going to be done to them and what is hoped to be achieved by it. Indeed, many doctors would be considered negligent if they failed to provide information and options to the patient. The patient might decline to listen to the doctor or refuse to look at x-rays, but the information is provided.

Yet in Oklahoma, the governor decided that providing information about the procedure of getting an abortion and what would be involved would be too much for a patient to have to listen to. Some seem to think that if women are informed in any detail regarding the procedure of abortion they might be disinclined to get one. Even if this is true, why this should upset pro choice advocates is a mystery. The Oklahoma law will do nothing to undermine the stated goals of abortion advocates to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will not be made any less legal or safe by the law. It might make it more rare. Unless abortion advocates believe that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is necessary if abortion is to survive, their opposition to the measure is unjustified. If the proponents of choice believe that information works to their disadvantage, they should reassess the merits of their beliefs. It is a rare case indeed when information is seen as an obstacle to be avoided.

Making Illegal Immigration Illegal

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer contributed mightily to the growing conflict over immigration when she threatened to enforce the law. She signed a bill yesterday establishing the most restrictive immigration law in the country. Under the new law, it will be illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The law would require police to "make a reasonable attempt" to ascertain the legal status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" regarding that person's immigration status. Immigrants would be required to provide documents proving they are in the country legally: documents they are obliged to possess. Additionally, it would allow laws suits to be filed against state and local agencies that are deemed to be abetting illegal immigration.

It is estimated that there almost 20 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Some put the number lower, others put it higher. Of those, 460,000 are in Arizona: an impressive number when you consider the population of Arizona is only six and a half million. The number of illegal immigrants is going up every day. Also, illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in certain areas making their impact greater than their overall numbers suggest. It is in the areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants that the greatest costs and turmoil over immigration exists. Arizona's new law may seem drastic to people in Vermont, but it has great resonance in Arizona.

The new law was quickly condemned by many. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles breathlessly equated the new law to "Nazism." Mexico is also upset over the law. It expressed concern about the rights of its citizens, a concern less often observed at home than abroad. Mexican President Felipe Calderon called the law an obstacle to solving shared problems of the border region. Mexico's problems in the border region are very different than Arizona's. For Mexico, immigration is often a bonus. It relieves pressure in many poor areas of Mexico and provides a substantial flow of income from money sent home by Mexican immigrants in the U.S. One can only speculate what Calderon's response would be if the situation was reversed and tens of thousands of Americans were regularly stealing into Mexico. Pro immigrant groups are predictably up in arms. Relying as they do on numbers to make their case, stricter immigration laws might affect their memberships and political clout.

President Obama has criticized the law as misguided, even harmful. He chided Arizona, saying the law threatened to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and communities" - as if enforcing the law was unfair. Fairness under law traditionally means the even application of the law regardless of person or circumstance. Exempting some people from obeying immigration laws is anything but fair. Mexicans should have to obey the same immigration laws that everyone else has to. As for undermining the trust between police and communities, if Obama was not speaking of the trust by illegal immigrants that they will not be apprehended and punished for violating immigration law, I am not sure what he was talking about.

The Arizona law reflects the frustration of many states with high illegal immigration. There are laws against illegal immigration, hence the title "illegal". The federal government has long been casual in enforcing those laws. It is state and local governments that have had to bear the brunt of the federal government's disinterest in enforcing immigration laws. Apart from the social and psychological dislocation caused by rapidly shifting demographics, there are concrete costs. Social services have had to be expanded to meet the needs of immigrants, many of whom are unskilled and illiterate, not just in English, but Spanish as well. Documents and services have to be duplicated to serve those unable to speak English: a not inconsiderable cost. School funding has had to be increased to meet the needs of the children of illegal immigrants: again, a burden that state and local governments often have to bear.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants in 2004 alone was $29.6 billion. Most of that additional cost was in places like Arizona and California with high concentrations of illegal immigrants. California spent $10.5 billion in 2007 to educate, incarcerate, and provide health care to illegal immigrants. It would be surprising if those costs have gone down. Against these costs are the benefits of cheap labor. But cheap labor has costs of its own, the most prominent of which is poverty. Additionally, local law enforcement has had to be increased to deal with many of the problems associated with porous borders, not least of which is drugs. There are numerous other costs associated with illegal immigration. Those costs are also largely borne by state and local governments.

There are many studies that exist concerning the costs and benefits of illegal immigration to the U.S. In 2007, the CBO concluded in regard to illegal immigration that "no agreement exists as to the size, or even the best way of measuring the cost at a national level." At the state level on the other hand, it is easier to measure the costs. They are closer to the problem and have a much better sense of the costs and benefits provided by illegal immigration. One conclusion that the majority of studies share is that it costs more than it benefits.

The federal government has done a poor job of securing the border and enforcing the law. In many cases, it has chosen to overlook the law, even at times intervening, as is the case in Arizona, to prevent its enforcement. Arizona is not seeking to change immigration laws, it is simply trying to enforce laws the federal government has enacted but proved reluctant to enforce. The governor stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."

Illegal immigration is a growing problem in the U.S., especially for those states forced to cope with large numbers of illegal immigrants. The majority of polls taken shows that most Americans believe that the federal government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. The numbers suggest they are right in their concern. Statistics show that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased sharply over the last two decades. It is estimated that 3.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally in 1990. In 2006, it was estimated that 12 million entered illegally. Despite recent information that the rate of illegal immigration has slowed due to the poor economy, the number is going up every day. If the federal government is unable, or unwilling to enforce laws against illegal immigration, it should not begrudge the states for trying to enforce them.

No doubt there will be many problems associated with trying to enforce the new law. What precisely a "reasonable suspicion" is or what constitutes a "reasonable attempt" will have to be worked out: assuming the law stands long enough for the issues to come up. Nevertheless, the effort by Arizona to gain control over its immigration problem is not unfair, racist, or tyrannical. It is simply trying to enforce the law and address a growing problem: a problem Washington should be taking care of, but isn't. If people object to immigration laws, those laws should be changed, not violated or ignored.

Illegal immigration is an active and growing problem. The longer it is not addressed, the worse it gets. Every year the issue gets put off the solution gets more difficult. The government needs to do something about it one way or the other. The federal government should help or get out of the way. Illegal immigration is not a pressing problem in many parts of the nation, but it is in Arizona. That is why Arizona is acting and Vermont is indignant. Therein lies the rub.

There are many who point out that laws against illegal immigration will not stop it. They are correct. But I would point out that laws against robbing banks do not stop people from robbing banks either, but that is no reason to ignore bank robbery. It is even less reason to legalize it.

Obama in the Polls

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creep, creep, creep.

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

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

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

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

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

A President for all Seasons.

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Habits

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

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

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

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

Ouch.

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

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

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

Trouble on the Horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sensible" Immigration Reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble in Kyrgyzstan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badu's "Art".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's Start a War

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace Talks

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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