Fading Hope and Little Change.

There is great interest in next month's election. Many Republicans anticipate picking up a good number of seats, even a majority in the House and Senate. Many Democrats fear it. President Obama is one. A Republican victory would be a significant hindrance to his ambitions and a major blow to his ego. Obama is convinced he is a man of destiny. A Republican victory would demonstrate otherwise.

Obama has been campaigning hard for fellow Democrats. Obama's presidential campaign centered around hope and change. Obama asserted that under his administration, things would get better. The "failed policies of the past" would be replaced by new policies that would bring about jobs and prosperity. They haven't. Things are still not well with the U.S. The failed policies of the past have given way to the failed policies of the present.

Two years ago when he was running for president, one of Obama's stock lines was that the Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch. The economy is still in a ditch. The Democrats have been in power for two years. They cannot blame the Republicans, although they are trying to desperately. The fact is they have no one to blame but themselves. Obama said he could get fix the economy. He hasn't. In fact, Bloomberg predicts that the unemployment rate will be higher at the end of Obama's term than it was when he took office. The unemployment rate was at 7.7% when Obama took office. It is now at 9.6%. Things are so grim at the moment that even the government is laying off workers

The hope that Obama promised two years ago has faded after two years of economic malaise. The change Obama promised has been elusive. Partisan conflict in Washington is worse than it has been in many years. Obama's monumental ambition and heavy hand in pushing his agenda have increased antagonism in Washington, not lessened it. Despite the rhetoric of the White House, resistance to Obama's agenda was largely based on principal, not on spite. It was the White House and the democrats who sought to portray opposition to the administration's agenda as based on politics and petulance. After all, Obama had won the election by such a large margin, clearly America embraced him. And, if America embraced Obama, it must have meant that they embraced his agenda. To oppose Obama verged on opposing America.

The administration can point its finger and make excuses for the struggling economy. They can comb the statistics finding nuggets of positive news. But Americans are still struggling, not just to find jobs, but to keep them. The ones with jobs might feel a little better with Obama's assurances, but to those without jobs and those struggling to make ends meet, statistics and press releases matter little.

Obama spoke about hope and change. People elected him because they hoped things would change. Thing haven't changed. Things have gotten worse. After being in charge for two years, the car is still in the ditch. Try as he might, Obama can't blame the Republicans for that.

We know how America feels about the economy. It will not be long before we find out how America feels about Obama and the democrats.

Interest Groups Are Not to Blame

It was reported this morning that spending by interest groups for next month's Congressional elections is five times what it was two years ago. $80 million has been spent so far alone for next month's election. The amount will go up. Government is bigger now than it was then. It also controls more than it did then. Of the many who associate interest group spending with corruption, the increase in spending is blamed on last year's ruling by the Supreme Court that freed groups from campaign financing rules that greatly crimped funding by large groups such as business, manufacturers, and medical associations. Additionally, the ruling removes the requirement that campaign donors be identified. Predictably, the left is in an uproar since they often are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising campaign funding from large, well funded sources. But they really have no one to blame but themselves.

Over the course of the last century, Washington has become the center of the economic and political universe largely due to the efforts of the left. Decisions made there affect every facet of American life. From agriculture and education to manufacturing and finance, there is very little that is not under federal purview. Because of this, very few people, institutions, and businesses can afford to be indifferent to what goes on in Washington. Decisions made there can affect not just factories and businesses, but whole industries and communities. It should not be surprising that many people and groups are not content to simply read about legislation in the newspaper.

Washington has also become the center of the social universe. Marriage, and child rearing, for example, have become matters of federal concern thanks to the left. What your children eat, or don't eat; read or don't read are no longer issues of concern only to parents. They are public issues. Because they are public issues, they are political issues.

It is the left that works so diligently to find the political aspect of everything in a manner that would impress communists and Jesuits. Once that aspect is located, it is to be manipulated in a manner suitable to their sensibilities. What the left didn't, and still doesn't, understand is that they do not have a monopoly on government manipulation. The tools and institutions put in place to achieve the ambitions of the left do not belong to them. They belong to whomever happens to be in office. It is naive of the left to believe that their opponents will never be in charge of the programs and institutions they have worked so hard to create. It is the right that is being naive if they believe that once they are in charge, they will stay in charge.

One of the chief consequences of the federal behemoth created by the left is the struggle for its control. The greater the stakes, the greater the struggle. The greater the struggle, the more money it will cost. If the left is at a disadvantage it is their own fault. They are the ones who raised the stakes by expanding federal government.

The vast amount of money that is being spent, and will be spent, on elections should not be blamed on selfishness or avarice on the part of interest groups and their constituents. Interest groups and, by extension their constituents, are simply trying to influence an institution that has come to have a great deal of power over how and under what conditions they can operate. It is all but impossible to go about one's affairs and be indifferent to what is going on in Washington. Whether one is a farmer, an auto worker, a lawyer or a doctor, what goes on in Washington can significantly affect one's life and livelihood. Some might be content to go the the polls every other year and cast a vote and cross their fingers. Those who aren't should not be blamed or criticized for looking out for their own interests.

Any law with the size, reach, and budget of the new health care act is a bonanza for lobbyists. So much money is involved and so many issues, industries and people are affected by it that it will attract lobbyists like a dead possum attracts flies. Countless people will want something out of it. Countless more will want to avoid something in it. Everyone will seek to find some advantage in it. All of them will spend great deals of money to achieve their goals. If politicians in Washington wanted to find a better way to increase campaign donations and guarantee job security for lobbyists than passing gargantuan legislation like the health care and financial bail out acts, they would be hard pressed.

Lobbyists and interest groups are not to blame for the financial circus that surrounds elections. Whenever an election touches on a major issue or portends change, those who might be affected mobilize. Washington is the problem. Washington is the Mount Everest of politics. Lobbyists and interest groups are simply Sherpas hired to help people to the top.

Who is the Finger for?

A new sculpture recently went up in front of the stock exchange in Milan, Italy. It is causing no small amount of controversy. Many find the sculpture offensive. The artist claims that the sculpture is intended to mock the Nazi salute. I don't see it.

Nevertheless, I believe the sculpture is entirely appropriate, except for one thing. It is facing the wrong way. Given the recent economic difficulties in Europe, the sculpture should be turned around to face the stock exchange. As it is, it appears that the stock exchange is flipping off the public in an act of contempt. On second thought, that just might be the point.

Someone should see about getting one of those for Wall Street. Washington too. They could put it right in front of the Capitol.

It is Not Rocket Science. It is Harder.

George Washington University recently completed a study on obesity and concluded that not only is obesity a large health problem, it is also a financial burden. The reason it is a financial burden is because obese people cost more than thin people.

The report concluded that an obese woman, in addition to suffering the indignity of being obese, can expect to lose $4,870 each year in wages and productivity. The average obese male loses $2,646 in wages annually. The study also found two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. There are other costs as well. Those costs include medical costs, and short term disability. Obesity even affects our national security. The typical obese male requires an additional $23 in gasoline to transport his bulk to and fro. An obese female requires an additional $21 making us more dependent on foreign oil.

It is hoped by some that the findings of the study will be additional motivation for Congress to tackle the issue. It is likely the government will do so. Once an issue gains status as an issue affecting the economy, the government usually gets involved. Only the federal government can address a national problem and it is argued that obesity has become a national problem.

It is not a national problem. It is a personal problem that unfortunately is all too common. It is not a matter of education as some like to claim. Neither is the problem a lack of information. Everyone knows that if you eat too much and do not exercise you will get fat. It is not a secret. Everyone knows that you can lose weight by eating less and exercising more. The wide spread growth of nutritional information on food products places a wealth of information in the hands of consumers. Even McDonald's provides nutritional information on the food it serves. If that labeling is not helpful it is because people do not take the time to read it or don't care. Neither problem will be solved by more government or blue ribbon panels.

The problem is people. Losing weight and getting fit can be difficult. It requires time and effort. Many people do not want to spend time and effort. That is why the market for miracle weight loss plans and magical drinks and pills is so lucrative. This is where the government comes in. It is believed that the government can succeed where willpower, state of the art machines, magical pills and drinks cannot. After all, if we put a man on the Moon (the Gold Standard of the efficacy of government), we can get people to lose weight.

Obesity does not just happen. People do not wake up one morning 50lb.s overweight. It takes time and lack of effort. Government is not going to change that. Just because we put a man on the moon does not mean we can get Johnny, or his parents to eat right or lose weight. We can't even get Johnny to do his homework.

Getting people to lose weight is not rocket science. It is harder. Science deals with identifiable and quantifiable principles that can be manipulated and measured. Obesity deals with people and human nature. All of the regulations and policies in the world cannot change human nature. Obesity may be a case of cause and effect. Human nature is not. Human nature is the x factor in all social planning. We can tell people how to lose weight, but we cannot make them do so.

Taxing food and penalizing the obese will not make people thinner. It will just make them poorer. There is already a correlation between poverty and obesity. We might just make things worse. If junk food become illegal, only criminals will eat junk food. There will be a lot of new criminals and many of them will be fat.

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.