A Necessary Provocation

On Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given a gift by the leader of the Hezbollah while visiting Lebanon. The gift was an Israeli rifle in a felt lined box. The rifle was captured during Hezbollah's war with Israel in 2006. Ahmadinejad later went on to give a speech in a town near the Israeli border where he told a crowd that "the world should know that the Zionists will perish." Both Israel and the U.S. condemned Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon as an "unnecessary provocation".

Yesterday, Israel announced that it would end its temporary restrictions on building in East Jerusalem and resume construction on contested land seized during the 1967 Middle East War in defiance of U.S. and international calls not to. The move outraged Palestinian leaders and was quickly criticized as a blow to the peace process. Washington is disappointed. Israel is determined. The Palestinians are furious. The move was seen by many as a provocation.

Iran's threats are a danger to Israel's existence. Israel's actions are a threat to Palestine's existence. Although one cannot equate the call for Israel's destruction with a resumption of building on contested land, both moves are provocative and threats to the peace process. A major difference is that while Iran is blustering, Israel is bulldozing.

Ahmadinejad is known for his incendiary rhetoric. Israel is known for its resolve. The threat Iran poses to Israel is serious but not immanent: nor will it be for some time, if ever. His statement poses no real threat in the West Bank to the peace process. The resumption of building in East Jerusalem is concrete and immanent. It is a very dangerous threat to the peace process. Every new Israeli settlement, every Palestinian evicted and every Palestinian house destroyed strengthens the Hezbollah and their allies in Iran and makes it more difficult for Palestinian leaders to keep talking. At times it seems that Israel's idea of peace is Palestinian submission.

The moves by both countries were likely made with an eye towards placating hard line elements. Ahmadinejad's comments were quickly condemned as an "unnecessary provocation" by leaders in Israel and the U.S. Israel's actions, on the other hand, were described by Washington merely as a "disappointment".

In a sense, both actions were necessary. For Ahmadinejad to retain power, he must placate the hard right in Iran and the hard right demands a tough stance on Israel. Furthermore, it is very much to his advantage to keep domestic attention focused outward on Israel, and by extension the U.S. and off domestic issues. It gives him more latitude in his attempts to keep his grip on power. For Netanyahu and his government, the decision to resume building in East Jerusalem is a necessary provocation if they want to remain in power. Netanyahu needs the Israeli right if he is to stay in power and the Israeli right wants to build settlements. Both policies do much to increase tension in the region.

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is privately delighted by the news in Israel. He loses nothing when Palestinian land is seized and houses are destroyed, but he gains much. A contented, prosperous Palestine would be a great blow. Hard liners in the region need conflict and tension if they are to survive. Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was far from unnecessary.

Immigration: It Is Not That Simple

In the sometimes contentious debate over immigration, it is frequently asserted that all Americans in one way or another abet illegal immigration. The argument by those who support, or at least sympathize with illegal immigration, is that the majority of Americans participate in it one way or another. Americans eat vegetables picked by illegal immigrants. Americans make use of the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide to hold labor costs down. Americans eat at restaurants staffed by illegal immigrants. In many more such ways Americans utilize the cheap labor afforded by illegal immigrants. They are correct. But where they err is in confusing participation with complicity.

When someone buys a house, that person cannot check whether the house was built using illegal immigrant labor. When a person eats at a restaurant, she cannot verify the immigration status of the kitchen staff. Neither can a hotel guest know whether the maid is in the U.S. legally. There are no signs marking whether the road one drives on is tended to by legal or illegal labor. One cannot ask park workers for their documents.

It is true that Americans benefit in many ways from illegal immigrants. But that does not make Americans complicit. When customers are able to walk down an aisle at the grocery store and choose between items labeled as to whether they were harvested by legal or illegal immigrants or hire a contractor knowing whether those in his employ are here legally or illegally, we will have a better idea as to the degree to which Americans support or oppose illegal immigration. When Americans can buy a house or rent an apartment with knowledge of whether it was built using legal or illegal labor we can gain insight into their views on immigration.

Until that day arrives, we can only assume and speculate. It is likely that day will never arrive. And, if that day ever arrives, it will be greeted with howls of protest from those who would conflate the choice such information provided with an invitation to racism and prejudice.

Many Americans, but certainly not all, do benefit from cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants. But that does not make them accomplices.

Believing It Doesn't Make It So

Andy Moreno is upset. Moreno, a senior, has been disqualified from running for homecoming queen at North Dallas High School. The reason Moreno was disqualified is that Moreno is a man. Moreno believes he should be allowed to compete for Homecoming Queen because, despite his male biology and physiology, he identifies himself as a woman. Technically Moreno is "transgendered". Transgendered is the term of choice for people in Andy's predicament. The school has told Moreno he is free to run for king, but he doesn't want to be a king. He wants to be a queen. Queer Liberation, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rights group, is preparing to go to court to defend Moreno's right to be a queen.

Moreno asserts he is a woman because he believes he is a woman. For Moreno and his supporters, that is enough. However "male" and "female" are not social, psychological, or cultural designations. They are biological designations. But Moreno and his supporters refuse to yield to biology. They insist that biology is irrelevant.

Moreno is free to believe he is anything he wants. He can believe he is a woman. He can believe he is a wizard. He can believe he is Queen of England for that matter. But believing it does not make it so. Neither does feeling it. Moreno has the right to dress like a woman. He has the right to behave as a woman. He has the right to believe he is a woman. But he does not have the right to be a woman. That is a right no Earthly institution can grant.

The human mind may know no limits. But nature does. If people want to contest with nature, that is their prerogative. However, they should be prepared to lose. They always do. Andy Moreno may believe he is a woman. He may dress as a woman. He may behave as a woman. He may someday obtain status as a woman. He may even have surgery to appear as a woman. But he will never be a woman. That is not because of ignorance, intolerance or bigotry. That is because of nature. If Moreno has an objection with nature, he will have to take it up with a higher authority than North Dallas High School.

Moreno is not demanding that he be left alone or tolerated. He is demanding that he be embraced. In doing so he is not simply asking for something that belongs to him, he is demanding something be given to him. He is demanding the approval and respect of others whether they want to give it or not.

Moreno has vowed to fight on. He may think he is fighting North Dallas High School, but in truth he is fighting something out of his league. It is out of every one's league.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You.

With a poor economy and a sour electorate, many candidates have decided to try and redirect voter ire towards China. Candidates around the country have begun to run ads portraying their opponents as being soft on trade and selling the U.S. out to China. Many of the ads have been harsh. One run by democrat Jack Space of Ohio shows a giant dragon thanking his republican opponent for the help he has provided to China. Others show ominous pictures of Chinese factory workers, presumably laboring to undermine the U.S. Not a few show pictures of abandoned factories, implying that they are shuttered due to Chinese subterfuge and capitalist greed. Some ads have even found room for pictures of Chairman Mao. China is an easy target for politicians. If nothing else, it makes Americans feel better by absolving us, (and our leaders of course), of blame for our predicament. Besides, the Chinese cannot vote in the U.S.

The U.S. is indeed in a precarious position in regard to China, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Much of the blame that does not belong to corporations seeking to maximize profits falls on American consumers. After all, they are the engine driving the demand for cheap goods. Unless you are a carpenter or a true patriot, there is no reason to buy a $50 hammer made in the U.S. at the hardware store if you can buy a $15 Chinese hammer at Wal-Mart. The Chinese are simply doing what the U.S. used to do best, meeting demand at as low a cost possible. If there was no demand for cheap goods or services, there would be no need to import them. Even though China has engaged in practices and maneuvers designed to give them an advantage in trade, those maneuvers and practices are not the cause of the issue. Blame the economy or blame the consumer. Blame business or blame labor. Blame Washington or blame Wall Street. Just don't blame the Chinese. They are simply doing business. 19th century business perhaps, but business nevertheless.

Worse still, the U.S. is not simply importing hammers and concrete from China. It is importing money. There is serious concern in many quarters regarding the growing reliance of the U.S. on China to manage its debt and meet its budget. Campaign rhetoric about jobs and trade to the side, the issue of U.S. borrowing is a grave one. Many fret that it is giving China too much leverage over the U.S. There is also the concern that we are contributing to the rise of a wealthy, sophisticated new opponent on the world stage.

One result of this apprehension is the visceral attacks on China becoming popular in many political races. There are even hints by some that, if necessary, the U.S. can retaliate by reneging on its debt. The costs of doing that would most likely be more severe than continuing to carry the debt. Perhaps if the U.S. were truly self sufficient it might be a credible option. But the U.S. is not self sufficient. It needs trade or it will collapse. Trying to replace China as a trading partner, to say nothing of being a creditor, would be near impossible.

China has been instrumental in keeping the U.S. afloat for some time now. But its help has come at a great price. It is estimated that the U.S. is in China's debt to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Because the burden of the debt has not yet truly been felt, the U.S. has been content to go on about its business, so to speak. The trade deficit and mounting debt often comes down to the issue of who needs who more. Many argue that China needs the U.S. as a market for its exports. The idea that China needs America is of comfort to many. It is believed that China would never act against us because of it. Others note that the U.S. needs China to finance our economy. They are both right. But the harsh rhetoric emerging from politicians regarding China is dangerous. Not only does it distort a complex issue by reducing it to brief images and slogans, it amounts to biting the hand that feeds you. Until the U.S. can feed itself, it should refrain from biting that hand. Cheap hammers we can get anywhere. A trillion dollars is another matter.

China is a proud country. They will not react well to sustained abuse by U.S. politicians. To antagonize China for political gain is short sighted. But someone has to be blamed for the dismal economy. If all else fails, blame China and their Fifth Column in Washington. There will be time to make it up to them after the election.

If the U.S. was really serious about addressing the economic challenge China represents to the U.S., it should reconsider relying upon China to balance our checkbook. But, like hunger, no one suffers from future privation. Neither does one lose elections on future suffering.

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.