This post is the seventh installment of an ongoing series, entitled : If you think your health care is my responsibility, you are a thief. If you think our health care system would be better if the government would intervene, you're a fool.
I'm making 2 predictions about health care reform.
First, despite what is predicted by the Congressional Budget Office, "health care reform" will add money to budget deficits and raise the national debt.
Government programs so often cost more than expected, it's entirely unnecessary for me to give examples. The one exception I'm aware of is the Apollo Program, which put men on the moon, on time and on budget. The trick there: Planners estimated their time needs, and built in 2 extra years. (They needed them both.) And the planners estimated the price tag, and doubled it. (They needed the money, too.)
President Obama says he will not sign a health care reform bill that adds "one dime" to the deficit. He also said the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be closed by next month. (He really can't predict the future as well as he'd like to.)
Second, (and this one's probably worse), the tan tax is the beginning, not the end.
Once the government starts spending tax money on something, it assumes a duty to hold the costs down to protect taxpayers. The Senate already intends to tax — at a rate of 10 percent — tanning.
Within 10 years, this "reform" bill will cost taxpayers way more than advertised. The Botox tax probably will be enacted before Mr. Obama is out of office. Indefensible taxes on Coca-Cola, chewing gum, and guacamole — and 437 other things that make life more enjoyable — will follow.
In small ways that add up to a big, ugly truth, President Barack Obama has shown us a piece of who he is. I think it's his ugliest side.
Criticizing one or just a few of these events alone would be nit-picky and unhelpful. Discourse is best when critics choose their battles wisely (that's why I don't complain about the size of the First Lady's paid staff or the high-profile "date nights" that the president drags his expensive entourage around for. At the end of the day, that's small potatoes. But together, we can see something we shouldn't like. This is no small battle. This is an examination of who the man is. And, I'm afraid, it's not pretty.
I don't think Mr. Obama has any respect for history.
No big deal, some will say. We live in the past too much. He's more concerned with the future.
And he should be. But if he doesn't respect the past (and I'm increasingly convinced that he does not) then he does not understand the past. And if he doesn't understand the awesome history of America, he has a set of reins that he cannot handle.
If he had even a rudimentary understanding of and respect for American history, Mr. Obama would see the world through a different lens. He would behave differently.
—> I first noticed this last fall, when Mr. Obama visited Europe in an effort to appear "presidential." In Berlin, he declared himself a "citizen of the world." Clearly, Mr. Obama did not realize Americans have enough trouble protecting our rights against our own government. If we brought "the world" into it, our freedom would have no hope.
Sudan with a seat on a human rights commission. Resolutions labeling as racist and criminal any criticism of any Islamic country. Kyoto-style treaties that demand the United States curb all economic activity, while completely ignoring India and China (two of the most prolific polluters in the world). That's what we get from "the world." Americans cannot afford that.
Indeed, if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would recognize what America is: A breed of people who fled the world because it is a harsh, cruel, immoral place. We or our ancestors (every one of us) sought America. That was not an accident.
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would prefer being an American to being a "citizen of the world." It's better for you.
—> I was further disturbed when Mr. Obama described our long-term goals in Afghanistan. He said he dislikes using the word "victory" because he doesn't want to raise hopes too high, to conjure any notions of seeing Emperor Hirohito coming aboard the USS Missouri to sign a surrender document.
If he had any respect for history, Mr. Obama would know the emperor did not sign the surrender document. Neither did Harry Truman. A handful of Allied military officers signed for our side, and junior officials signed the papers for their side. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would know chiefs of state almost never sign the paperwork at the end of a war; military commanders usually meet in the middle of the field for that.
—> I shouldn't have been surprised when, during Mr. Obama's visit to Asia last week he declared himself the "first Pacific President" because he hails from that region and because geopolitical reality today requires more focus on China and North Korea than in previous years.
But if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would recognize at least 10 previous presidents either spent a significant portion of their pre-presidential careers (thereby being influenced by it) in the Pacific realm, or who made hefty presidential decisions about the Pacific realm (thereby influencing it).
I can picture Jack Kennedy swimming through miles of saltwater, holding a strap in his teeth to tow a wounded shipmate to safety. I can also see a young George H.W. Bush, shot down, bobbing, praying he'd be spotted by Americans before Japanese. To the extent that the word "Pacific" can be used as an adjective, I expect either Kennedy or Bush would think it applies to them.
Does this guy realize the world was, in fact, here before he came along?
—> The most offensive remains Mr. Obama's insistence on bowing to kings and emperors. In April, he showed subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia (and, remarkably, Obama's spokesman lied about it). And last week, Mr. Obama surely pulled a back muscle whilst bending down upon meeting Japan's emperor.
Neither episode was a case of simply adopting a local custom — say, bowing as a form of mutual greeting, in lieu a handshake. Neither monarch returned the bow. (They're not gutless, sniveling pukes. They're men.)
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would respect what America is. And if he respected what America is, he would bow to no one short of the Almighty.
He would know America was founded because Americans decided they need not bow to another man. Americans decided that no man, by virtue of his birth alone, is superior. Even the strictest rules of manners stipulate that American citizens are not obligated to bow to royalty from another nation. (Also, those rules stipulate that the head of one state need not bow to the king of another.)
Every human being who is free today owes that freedom to a generation of Americans who insisted (it was quite radical of them, at the time) that men should be equals. They picked up guns, pointed them at their oppressors, and said: No More. I will bow to no king, forevermore.
Before America's Founding Fathers won that freedom, it did not exist for anyone anywhere. Many free nations can, today, trace their freedom directly to America having liberated them during World War II. The rest of the free nations can all trace their freedom indirectly to America's good example.
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would understand what human history is. It's a lot of invasion, poverty, theft, slavery, rape, famine, subservience, and murder. The relative peace known to the world since the 1950s is the exception. The equality of Americans since the 1960s is the exception. The prosperity seen in America since the 1850s is the exception. The liberty enjoyed in America since late 1700s is the exception.
The rule is defined by the time beginning with man's climb from the swamp and ending at the Battle of Yorktown. That rule is tyranny.
America is not perfect and it never has been. But peace, equality, human harmony, liberty, justice and prosperity are — to the extent they exist — American inventions. At least, they exist because America insisted they should, when no other country did. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would know that.
He would know these things are not accidental. He would know Americans of the revolutionary generation were tired of the old ways and blazed this radical new trail.
It has been said that America is more than a country: It's an idea. And it is not a trivial thing, that idea. Today, it seems natural that no person should have to bow to another, based only on the other's higher status at birth. But that notion is new to humanity. New since the 1770s. New to the world. Widely recognized.
Because of America.
No American has a moral right to under-appreciate that idea. And if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would not under-appreciate it as much as he has repeatedly shown us he does.
If he had any respect for history, he would wake up each morning and pray, offering thanks to God that such men as our Founding Fathers were able to find one another on one continent in one era. He would rise each morning, look in the mirror, see himself as the chief defender of that heritage. It should terrify him, to know that he has the power to damage it.
It should also inspire him with awe and pride. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would hold his head proud and high every second that he's visible to anyone.
Don't get me wrong. If Mr. Obama wants to bow to the Grand Vizieour of Sludobia, that's his choice. He's a free man. He'll never hear me tell him he can't.
But if he any respect for history, he would choose not to.
One of the best things about America is that, when the president decides to give a speech to all the country's schoolchildren, local teachers can choose not to show it. One of the worst things about America is that some make that choice.
Those who did, and the parents who demanded it, blew an important opportunity to teach schoolchildren something they must know if America is to survive their generation: Don't believe everything you see.
I remain bewildered by those who insist they have a right to never hear anything they disagree with.
It's childish and stupid when pushy leftists demand all references to God be stricken from public buildings. It's equally so when scared conservatives demand schools prevent a school kickoff speech from President Obama.
The First Amendment guarantees the affirmative right of free speech. To guarantee that right, it necessarily must exclude the aforementioned negative right to never hear what you don't like. We can have one or the other, not both. The Constitution guarantees speech, not silence.
It's becoming clearer all the time that the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for themselves and their neighbors — and their children — than do Americans today. Obviously, many of us think other people (including family members) are pretty dim. They also seem to think they hold no responsibility to raise their own offspring.
I can't count the number of times my mom has told me not to believe every word I heard at school, from Kindergarten into law school. By the 7th grade, I was quite familiar with the concept that sometimes teachers and textbooks lie. I supplemented what I heard at school with books I read outside of class, news on TV and in the newspapers, documentaries on The History Channel and National Geographic, and countless conversations with trustworthy (and some not so trustworthy) adults.
If atheist parents don't like the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, they ought to tell their children to go silent when the other kids say them. If conservative parents are convinced that Mr. Obama will give a weekly socialist manifesto that their kids must endure, they ought to teach their kids why socialism is bad and why the president is wrong.
That's not a difficult prospect: Even 9-year-olds like an allowance for doing chores. And he won't like it if you try to make him share with the neighbor kid who didn't help.
If children are not taught to resist the lies they are told at school (by the president, their teacher, or the devious classmate who wants to see them in trouble), they won't learn to see through the lies that will be told them by politicians and others for the next 50 years.
If they aren't allowed to see hear something they disagree with said persuasively, they won't develop a means of resistance, they won't ever think about why they think the way they think. They'll not learn to develop an intelligent, persuasive response. If they are taught that they ought to be liberal or conservative or Martian because that's what their parents were, they won't ever have any ideas of their own.
A decent school will teach kids the basics of reading, writing, history, math and science. A good school will teach them to think for themselves, to remain skeptical, to disagree (and boldly) when they have a reason to. A great school will teach them to look for reasons to disagree. In any event, a child's parents are far more important to his education than the school is.
By the time a child is in middle school, he ought to have an internalized, natural idea (incomplete but strong) of how he thinks and why — and he ought not be afraid of expressing it or of hearing something from a different perspective. By the time they're in high school, they'll need to know how to see it coming without any forewarning.
When they hear of someone trying to "indoctrinate" them, they ought to be ready to react with a sarcastic: Go Ahead and Try, Punk. I Know What You're Up To.
They ought to be able to think independently of their teacher, their classmates, the principal, the president, Zack Morris or their parents. If we don't let them, if we don't encourage them, freedom will die in their lifetime.
Even before their intellect has developed to that stage, they need exposure to a variety of thoughts. In most of the things they do, elementary school children are completely overwhelmed; they're used to it. They like it that way. Tell them to sink or swim, and very few of them actually need the lifeguard.
My recommendation for schools for the future: Show the speech. Ask the students what they liked about it. Ask what they didn't like about it. What they agreed with and disagreed with. Some will be for Obama, and some against. Welcome to America.
I remember when my cousin was in Kindergarten during the 2004 presidential campaign. Not yet able to read, her class voted by checking the box on the ballot near the picture of their favorite candidate. Little Kayla took the extra step of scribbling all over John Kerry's face. Kids are smarter than we realize.
I was surprised to hear President Obama's planned speech to the nation's schoolchildren would be a first by a president. I was even more surprised when I saw the poll question on the Denver Post's web site: Would you encourage or discourage your child from watching this speech. When I voted, a narrow plurality would discourage their children from watching. (Some are prohibiting them.)
Mr. Obama's accompanying "what they can do to help the president" lesson plan was, of course, inappropriate. The president of the United States should speak to the country's children every year and instead encourage them to help themselves. (That's what education is for.)
But on it's face, Mr. Obama's trip to school seemed to me a legitimate 'study hard and make something of yourself, kids' pep-talk. That the White House quickly removed the "help the president" line from the lesson plan is evidence that Mr. Obama does not intend this to be controversial. Part of the president's job is, after all, making speeches and inspiring.
Today I'm more interested in the reaction that Mr. Obama's planned speech has had. It reminded me of a Rasmussen Reports poll released this week: 42 percent of American voters think "a group of people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress."
We have the best government in the history of the world. Yet so many people don't trust the president of the United States to speak to their kids. So many people didn't trust the last president with anything. So many people didn't trust the president before him with their teenage daughters. So many people don't trust Congress as much as they trust "a group of people randomly selected from the phone book."
So many people don't trust the government, even to have good intentions. That says a lot about our government.
Former Congressman Tom Campbell, who won praise this week from the stuffy George Will, is running for governor of California.
Libertarian-leaning (and unashamed), the economics professor who studied under Milton Friedman faces long odds at getting the nomination, much less winning in November 2010. But he has remarkable insight — "don't just do something, stand there" — when it comes to economics.
As Mr. Will wrote, "Colorful he is not." And among his opponents he counts the extremely colorful Jerry Brown and rainbow-tinted Gavin Newsom. But he seems to know his stuff.
Whilst Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi call names, their union thugs (Pelosi might describe this as a "grassroots movement") stomp and kick normal people.
Upset at America's angry reaction to their attempts at a hostile takeover of the health care industry, Mr. Hoyer and Mrs. Pelosi today co-authored an op-ed piece arguing: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." They ought to remember that town-hall meetings take place so a Congressman can listen to his constituents, not the other way around. And they ought to recognize that enthusiastic rejection of the left's lies is not the same thing "drowning out the facts."
Pelosi, Hoyer, et al swear up and down that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it." They don't mention the adjective "qualified" that appears more than 100 times (usually in front of the words "plan," or "provider") in the House's bill. When they say you can keep your plan if you like it, they mean you can keep your plan if they like it.
Lots of folks have read that, among other things, in the House bill. Most Americans are opposed to such nonsense, so they're saying so.
In response, congressmen are shouting at their constituents. And the senior leadership -- Pelosi and Hoyer -- have formed a brand new, two-person House Un-American Activities Committee, which has ruled all opponents are in violation.
As of this writing, the merry pair has yet to comment on the violent physical attack against Kenneth Gladney by uniformed members of the Service Employees International Union. The attack sent him (at least temporarily) into a wheelchair.
It makes one wonder if either new-HUAC member would recognize un-American activity if it showed up in a SEIU T-shirt, slammed them to the ground and started pounding. Drowning out opposing views is un-American? How about grabbing the opponent and flinging him to the pavement?
Suppose President Bush had asked citizens to inform him of every anti-war comment made "in casual conversation." He might have been impeached. He probably would have deserved it.
I understand that President Obama and Co. do not (yet) intend to prosecute or persecute Americans just for disagreeing with him on health care reform. Yet it is extremely creepy that the president of the United States has asked Americans to rat out one another, to e-mail his hotline so that he can keep track of the viewpoints opposed to his.
This behavior from the federal government is instructive in another way. It shows that Mr. Obama is being flooded by the issues he's taking on. We already have a destructive recession, a crippling federal deficit, rising anger between Americans of differing political persuasions, and six or eight international relations issues that might erupt into something very ugly in the next year. That's plenty for the plate of any one president (or three).
The current debate on national-level health care reform adds another, huge layer. It's one more reason for conservatives and libertarians to dislike and distrust liberals and statists and vice-versa. It's one more massive strain on the federal budget, and the federal budget really can't handle what it's already got. It's one more thing that is distracting intelligent people away from the war in Afghanistan (and, from everything I've read, we need every available intelligent person to contribute to that effort).
And it's one more thing that the president and his staff must spend political and intellectual effort on. Mr. Obama and his people are so busy with other things (other, legitimate federal concerns that are genuinely at crisis levels) that they can't keep track of this debate.
By their own admission, they're taking on too much.
Maybe this comes from my libertarian nature. Or maybe it comes from my lifelong fascination with, and my formal education in, history. Perhaps it's the synthesis of the two: My morbid interest in the evil men of the world. The serial killers, corrupt big-shots and, especially, the tyrants.
I've read thousands of news stories about criminals, and I've written a few. I've studied scores of books about hundreds of peoples and their actions over the course of all human history, from man's climb out of the swamp to his leap toward the stars. I took a hefty load of courses devoted to the study of how people have behaved and why. And I've followed politics and government's activities for as long as I can remember.
I am not the sole authority on human behavior, nor am I singularly or even uniquely qualified to discuss sociological occurrences. But during my education, such as it is, I've noticed something important.
Of all the serial killers, corrupt big-shots and tyrants there have been (and there have been a lot), the very very worst of them are always in government.
Adolf Hitler could have neither killed 6 million Jews nor invaded Poland from any job other than Chancellor of Germany.
Joseph Stalin was never all that friendly, but the Purges, the Pogroms, the forced collectivization of farms and the famine-by-policy were never possible until he became General Secretary of the Soviet Union.
There is little record of Idi Amin's exploits before he seized the office of "His Excellency, Presient for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada." His exploits while in office are more well known.
But for the authority granted him as a leader, Pol Pot would have been unable to murder one-fifth of Cambodians.
There are many kinds of human criminals on many scales of severity. Some bad, bad people never held a job higher up than chocolate-maker. But Jeffrey Dahmer's death toll was less than 20; Stalin's was at least 20 million.
Certainly, Sarah Palin's name does not belong on any list with the names above. She's never been convicted of so much as swiping a candy bar from a grocery store (though she's been accused of much). But she has been a member of government, with far more authority than most normal people would ever seek. A governor of a state or another chieftain in government can, if she so chooses, destroy innocent people.
I don't know why Mrs. Palin decided to resign. My sense is that she did not seek fame, that, rather, duty called her into every campaign she ever entered. My other sense is that she does not deserve the lies that have been told about her or the hatred she has attracted. In whatever she chooses to do next (and I am not at all convinced that she will run for president, though I am entirely convinced she'd do a better job than Barack Obama is) I wish her well.
In larger terms, maybe my thoughts come from my deep well of mistrust for government. (If you trust government -- even ours -- any further than you can throw it, then you are a gullible, sad, pathetic excuse for a human being.) Maybe it's because I saw what the Ayatollahs did to Iranians after their recent election. Maybe it's because, for all of my short life and for all the history of human beings, governments all over the world have been guilty of (at best) waste, fraud and abuse, and (at worst) of outright theft, rape and murder.
From what I know, from what I've seen, from what I've experienced and learned, there is one thing -- maybe only one thing -- that a government potentate can do at any time in their career and almost never be wrong for doing it.
They can quit.
There are significant exceptions, of course. The retirement of Ronald Reagan in 1981, Abraham Lincoln in 1862, or George Washington in 1776 would have sent the world down a road to darkness. But the scarcity of such men is barely finite.
Almost every time a person with power relinquishes it, humanity wins.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been caught in a farce.
The Associated Press reports that, despite that city's new anti-idling law, the mayor's government-owned SUV's are frequently operated in neutral for great periods of time. For every second, gasoline purchased by taxpayers is burned for no purpose; and this situation is instructive about the attitudes held by leaders in the global warming hysterics movement.
Bloomberg fancies himself a savior of the anti-global warming/the ice age is coming/climate destabilization is a tragedy/climate change is the greatest threat America has faced since World War II/whatever the left is calling it this week movement. And his own actions, the actions of his mayoral administration, contradict the notion that there is any threat whatsoever posed by carbon dioxide.
Oh, to live in a world where Mr. Bloomberg was an isolated anomaly.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has long insisted on greater energy use restrictions. He also has long driven a fleet of gas-guzzling Hummer SUV's.
Britain's Prince Charles and our own "prince" Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have, for quite some time, traipsed all over the globe demanding that people reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. This traipsing has been done, by each of them, in private jets.
Former Vice President Al Gore (who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-global warming crusade) lives in a house that consumes more than 20 times as much electricity than the average American home.
Mr. Gore's spokesmen insist that he really is a believer, that he has no carbon footprint (because he "purchases carbon credits"). But if he were as convinced as he lets on that carbon dioxide emissions are ruining the world, he would continue to purchase those credits, and he would stop burning so much electricity.
His actions speak a lot louder than all the words ever uttered. Even Al Gore doesn't believe in the threat of global warming. And neither do Messrs. Kennedy, Schwarzenneger, Bloomberg, and Charles.
One of two things is occurring. Either these environmental advocates know that human activity and carbon emissions are not destroying the earth, or they think they ought to get one set of rules, and the rest of the world should get another.
There's a simple, important reason why the Obama Administration and the Congress of leftistas have so often passed laws before letting Americans read them. In more than one case, Congress has voted so swiftly to enact legislation entailing thousands of pages that it was physically impossible for any member to have read the bills before voting.
They do this because, if Americans knew what Congress and the president were up to, Congress and the president couldn't get away with it.
For example: The Treasury Department recently ran a 'help wanted' ad for a cartoonist to help add humor to the government's portrayal of its indefensible deficits and corrupt, unconstitutional spending habits. It took a simple link on the Drudge Report (with no further comment) to shame Treasury into canceling that advertisement. Once an idea that stupid is put to into public consciousness, politicians know they'd better end it if they want to get re-elected.
When he was running for office, asking for Americans to vote for him, President Obama vowed to publish all legislation on the White House's Web site for a minimum of five days — so as to allow citizens to review it and make comments — before he would sign anything. What Mr. Obama didn't say was that he had no intention of keeping that vow, or even of pretending to.
The "economic stimulus" bill passed in February is the most egregious example of legislation in the darkness. That bill was thousands of pages long, and it was passed by Congress just a few hours after it was written. Mr. Obama signed it forthwith. Today, Vice President Joe Biden explains the bill's failure by saying "everyone guessed wrong" or everyone "misread the economy." Mr. Obama insists that "we had incomplete information."
And now these same buffoons, the ones who used "incomplete information" to justify tossing a trillion dollars down a stinking pit, are demanding the passage of a massive, game-changing government takeover of the nation's health care system. In the next 14 days.
Their urgency is explained by the upcoming summer congressional recess. If Congressmen have to go back home and visit their constituents, those constituents will demand that the health care takeover be killed.
Coming from a man who will begin law school next month, this might seem peculiar.
But logic applied to the law of supply and demand (which, by the way, is more binding than any statute or regulation that I'm aware of), dictates a simple step to reducing health care costs in America. State governments across the country could do it today, and it would begin improving the health care market in just a few years.
States could dramatically reduce tuition at public medical schools, and replace lost revenue by dramatically increasing tuition at public law schools.
There are a variety of factors contributing to this market imbalance. Among them is the exorbitantly expensive malpractice insurance that doctors must carry to protect themselves against all the attorneys with too much time on their hands.
Another factor is the expense of medical school, especially compared to other professional schools. A cost-benefit analysis of law school vs. medical school would send all but those most-committed to medicine towards a law degree. At the University of Kansas, where I will enroll in August, law school tuition will be about $15,000 for the academic year. At the KU Medical Center, on the other hand, tuition is about $24,000 a year. Law school lasts three years, medical school lasts four.
So youthful Kansans intent on post-graduate education and a professional career see a bill of $45,000 over three years to become a lawyer. Then they see $96,000 over four years to become a doctor. Add, say, $60,000 in lost income for the fourth year, when the lawyer will practice and the doctor will pay tuition.
My brother (an engineer) and my sister (a math teacher) both far exceed my skills and enthusiasm at mathematics. But even I can add that one up.
We could have the libertarian discussion about whether or not social engineering is moral. (It is not.) But at the end of the day, it is not the goal of public universities to act as charity towards all men, so that each can pursue whatever whim might fancy him. It is the goal of public universities to provide the education for the new generation, in accordance with the needs of the taxpayers that are funding them.
At the moment, those taxpayers need more doctors than attorneys.
The government's methods of choice for battling this recession have included bailouts and nationalization of the financing industry, modest tax rebates and credits, and spending projects on an unprecedented scale. At least thrice, Congress and two different presidents (of near polar opposition) have spent money by the barrel-full to end the recession.
First, with unemployment near 5 percent (a healthy baseline, according to nearly all economists) last February, President Bush insisted on a $152 billion rebate and aid program. Congress acquiesced. Next, with unemployment at about 6 percent last September, President Bush demanded a $700 billion bailout of irresponsible banks. Congress agreed. Unfortunately, as Ronald Reagan put it, "the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan." So finally, with unemployment at about 7 percent this February, President Obama promoted a $787 billion rebate and aid and infrastructure spending extravaganza. Congress nearly peed itself with glee, and then piled on even more.
Today unemployment is pushing 10 percent, and almost nobody thinks things will get better soon.
All in, the federal government has spent more than $1.6 trillion to fight this recession. And each time the government has acted, the recession has grown more severe.
In 12 months, these economic stimulus/aid/rescue plans have added nearly 20 percent to the national debt (the rest of which had been accrued over two centuries). They have bred resentment and division. And they have failed miserably.
During the 1960s, the United States spent less than $20 billion (adjusted for inflation, about $140 billion, or 7 percent of what's been wasted in the name of "stimulus" since last February) to achieve lunar exploration. Prior to the Apollo project, no human had ever left low-earth orbit. None has done so since.
The United States caught up to the Soviet Union in the space race, and left the USSR in the vapor trails. Before the Apollo program, the Soviet Union had won every significant "first" (first satellite, first man outside earth's atmosphere). After Apollo, the Soviet Union was far behind with no hope of ever catching up. Astronauts planted Old Glory and played golf in places Cosmonauts are still dreaming of.
It is no small thing that the excitement of the lunar mission ignited ferocious interest in engineering throughout the country. That's economic stimulus. Children in math and physics classes had interesting reasons to pay attention. That's economic stimulus. Inventiveness was cool. That's economic stimulus. More than 20,000 companies and universities, and more than 400,000 people worked directly for the Apollo program (those are high-tech, high-paying jobs). That's economic stimulus. (The difference is, these jobs actually built things and improved people's lives.)
The nation had a rallying point to work towards. Now that it's ended, we have something to be proud of.
Consider: The American space program was in its infancy when the first Soviet cosmonaut left the bounds of Earth. Six weeks later, President John F. Kennedy challenged our space-novice nation to go to the moon. Eight years later, Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind. All for $20 billion.
Now consider the improvements we've made in fuel economy, communication equipment, computing power, lightweight materials and aerodynamics. Consider the improvements in our knowledge of human health in adverse conditions (and in climate control systems). Consider our vast industrial and technological upgrades.
Who doesn't believe Americans could have taken that $1.6 trillion that was just frittered away and instead employed it to land a human on Mars in the next 25 years?
We are left to wonder what new technologies we would have invented along the way. It is sadly possible that they will never be invented, now.
President Kennedy will be forever remembered as the visionary who inspired his nation to reach the moon. The "stimuli" of Presidents Bush and Obama will be treated far less kindly by history, and rightfully so.
Teenager Alexa Longueira was zoned into her cell phone, texting, as she walked down the street. It surprised the heck out of here when she fell into a manhole and suffered minor cuts and bruises.
Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise the heck out of anyone that her parents intend to sue New York City and cash in on their daughter's lack of self-preservation.
This story shows relation to a pilot program in the United Kingdom, in which tax money is being used to wrap padding around lampposts for the protection of walking texters.
I'm not a taxpayer in Britain or in New York. Neither issue affects me in any way. I'm not annoyed at the sight of the idiot-pads on the poles, nor am I distressed at having involuntarily paid for them. If a jury awards Ms. Longueira a billion dollars, not a cent of it will come from me. But if I were, I'd be asking the following questions, and asking them as loudly and as often as I could:
Why can't people walk without injuring themselves? Why must I pay for someone else failing to watch what they're doing? Why in the hell is their lack of responsibility my problem?
Interesting that on Independence Day, a handful of cops showed up on the property of Vito Congine Jr. and stole his American flag.
Mr. Congine is attempting to open a restaurant in Crivitz, Wis., but the town's council has vetoed his move to acquire a liquor license. So, to protest, the would-be entrepreneur decided to fly Old Glory upside down on his flagpole. He says he faces the distress of probable financial ruin without the city's permission to sell booze.
His monthlong protest was interrupted July 4, when police officers came on scene and swiped the flag. Evidently, neighbors were offended by the gesture and feared it would ruin their Independence Day parade. (The flag was later returned, and Mr. Congine has resumed his protest.)
In this brutal recession, there is some irony that flunkies on a city council rejected one man's plans for opening a new business. The events since are even worse.
Mr. Congine has been subjected to the culmination of an overbearing town council, a busybody district attorney with a severe lack of respect for the Constitution, a thuggish sheriff, and stupid deputies who are far too willing to follow orders. For this incident, every one of them deserves to be fired or defeated in the next election.
And the worst ingredient of all is a group of Americans who think they can call the authorities every time they see something they don't like. Those authorities only add to the problem when they do the mob's bidding.
For some reason, too many Americans think they have the right to never hear anything they disagree with. Too many think they have the right to never be offended. They think they can dial 911 because McDonald's is out of chicken nuggets. They're acting like idiot children badly in need of a spanking.
I don't like the smell of the feedlots near my hometown but I hardly assume the right to close them down. I don't own the world, and neither do the people of Crivitz.
The abused businessman is a veteran of the war in Iraq. His comment on the matter is simple, harsh and appropriate: "It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else, and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."
However angry Mr. Congine is, it's not nearly enough.
Iran -- the nation whose leading export is terrorism -- continues to develop a nuclear weapon, which it insists it will use to destroy Israel.
North Korea -- the nation whose leading export is nuclear weapons technology -- continues to illicitly sell military material and to launch long-range missiles, in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
According to figures from 2005, about 1.4 billion people are in poverty and are forced to live on about $1.25 per day.
The most severe economic contraction since World War II is underway and raging, making some of the above figures worse by the day.
Cuba holds hundreds of people prisoner for political differences. Some other countries in the world are worse.
Leaders of the world's richest, most powerful and most influential countries are meeting in L'Aquila, Italy, and they could choose to discuss and act on some of these items, items that can be alleviated by human beings, and items that are genuine, terrifying problems facing the world. But the G-8 leaders are more interested in altering the weather.
Why Congressman Brian Baird and a handful of colleagues needed to visit the Galapagos Islands, we may never know.
When the Wall Street Journal analyzed Congressional members' travel patterns over the last 14 years, they discovered a tremendous spike in spending on official trips. Since 1994, members of Congress have elevated their own travel outputs 10 times, to $13 million in 2008.
Baird and other members spent more than $20,000 on food and lodging in a four-day stint in the islands. When the Journal sought an explanation, he declined to answer.
The analysis shows why so many Americans don't trust government to do things correctly or efficiently, and it shows how little respect for their positions (and how much self-importance) many elected officials carry.
Compared to other outlays, the $13 million spent on official travel is less than a drop in the ocean. But in real-world thinking, $13 million is $13-freaking-million. And this is money that's been spent by a government that doesn't have it.
Some Congressional Delegations make legitimate, beneficial journeys across the world to arrange for trade opportunities, massage allied feelings, find facts in war zones and represent our country to other nations. But the $260,000 that was spent in New Zealand and Australia seems a bit over the top. Ditto the $250,000 in Austria, the $140,000 in Italy, and the $920,000 spent in the U.K, France, Germany and Poland. And Switzerland ($163,000) is neutral -- what are we gonna negotiate away from them?
These numbers are bipartisan and they include just food, hotels and incidental expenses. Travel arrangements -- often at the expense of the government -- cost even more.
Such thriftlessness in days of budget surplus are one thing. But our government almost always runs a massive deficit. It's not worth it.
In his iconic 1964 "A Time For Choosing" speech, describing the potential demise of America, Ronald Reagan said, "History will record with the greatest astonishment that those with the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening."
What we see today is worse even than that. If the leftist government in Washington succeeds in passing it's Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" legislation to "fight global warming," prosperity and free enterprise as we have known them for centuries will be gone. And it won't be because those of us with the most to lose did the least to prevent it, it'll be because those of us with the most to lose legislated it intentionally.
The Wall Street Journal describes Congress' "cap and trade bill" as the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States (counting another strike against President Barack Obama's "not any tax" campaign promise).
Facing difficulty jamming the 900-page proposal (which almost nobody has read) through the House of Representatives, today the potentates in Congress bribed a few members with a 300-page amendment (which almost nobody has read). With the promise of a few sweetening handouts (which almost nobody has read), Waxman-Markey passed on a 219-212 vote.
Even Mr. Obama's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, says the bill (supported by the Obama Administration) is far too radical. Careful analysis of cap and trade shows that, 25 years from now, it will cost a family of four as much as $6,800 a year. (For those keeping score at home, $6,800 is a lot.)
For a moment, consider what government is capping and trading: Carbon emissions. Everything we do emits carbon! Driving cars, turning on light switches, riding buses, Twittering, cooking, washing laundry, operating electric shavers, even breathing. What insanity has so enveloped Washington that it thinks it can morally tax all that? And what stupidity has struck it that it thinks doing so won't be an economic disaster?
Government twits won't advertise that they intend to tax every second of every day of our lives, at least not at first. But when the income tax was established in 1913, it was 1 percent. The beta version of this tax will be its most affordable version.
All this to stop "global warming" -- the left's most bizarre concoction since its insistence that the ice age was coming. Now that the man-made global warming hysteria has been rejected by everyone with a brain (and by many countries that tried and failed to change the weather by fiat, and then realized they were wasting their time and harming their citizens), leftists in the American government are hoping to enact the most idiotic, restrictive, expensive "anti-global-warming" plan yet.
Yes, it's embarrassing. But more than that, it'll do far more damage to America than all the carbon emissions in all the history of the world.
Sarah Palin's reputation has been (unfairly) damaged by her opponents. Bobby Jindal is too young, and he has to run for re-election in 2011 (he can't very well run for president a few months later). Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are yesterday's news. Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty suffer a severe name-recognition deficit.
So now that Mark Sanford's personal flaws have trumped any hope he might have harbored for the Big Chair, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has moved to the front of the line of Republican candidates to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.
A normal American can look at Hurricane Katrina and see Mr. Barbour's effectiveness as an administrator: We heard much about the suffering of Louisianans during that time. Our knowledge of Mississippians' plight is far less robust.
This could be because Mr. Barbour is a competent governor (compared to Louisiana's Kathleen Blanco) who had an adequate response plan in place and intelligent officials running the show. Or, it could be that the thousand-mile-wide storm decided to spare Mississippians. How lucky.
Columnist Robert Novack described Democrats' thirst to beat Barbour in October, 2003. Even back then, Democrats knew what they were facing: Let this man win the governorship, they reasoned, and we might see him again further down the line.
They could not beat him then, and he was elected governor of Mississippi. (He beat an incumbent Democrat who had received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.) And now we have the very real possibility that Democrats will have to face him again.
The casual observer might think of Mrs. Palin as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. But the astute observer, I think, will see that Mr. Barbour is the man Democrats will have to beat.
As much as I detest the never-ending campaign that started in early 2005, and as much as I promised myself I would not be a party to it, I feel confident in betting on this much: In the coming months, we will see many news stories disparaging Haley Barbour's character. His accomplishments will be besmirched. His successes downplayed. His failures distorted, warped and magnified. We will see ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR and CNN -- not to mention the Democratic National Committee -- go to tremendous lengths to destroy this man.
The humorous notion of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford trekking through the woods naked has been replaced by the sad reality of a man cheating on his family. To his discredit, Mr. Sanford has had an extramarital affair for about a year, he said today. To his credit, he stood in front of the world and came clean to his constituents (his wife already knew about the affair), admitted guilt, begged for forgiveness in time — and then took questions.
That is all between Mr. Sanford and his family, and then between he and South Carolinians. Today I only wish to reaffirm what I've said previously about the governor leaving the office and turning off his phone for a time: Mr. Sanford flew clear out of the hemisphere, and nobody even got their eye put out.
There is a clear difference between the political class of Americans and the normal class of Americans, and it was demonstrated in coverage of the governor's absence. Sanford's political opponents (in both parties), his state's separately elected lieutenant governor, media members, cable news contributors (including Mike Huckabee, who is largely sympathetic to many of Sanford's causes) and other members of the political/ruling class denounced the governor in near unanimous fashion for leaving the state and calling his office only infrequently.
"There has to be a line of command," insisted Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, discussing his appall at Sanford's temporary hiatus.
What Mr. Bauer ought to know is that the line of command is quite clear: In the governor's absence, the lieutenant governor has authority to act during emergencies. Had the earth quaked and a giant fissure opened in the middle of Charleston, Mr. Bauer would have had legal authority to call up the National Guard and state police to assist, and to request federal aid from Washington.
Furthermore, if we examine the fears put forth by Mr. Sanford's critics, the end result is pretty clear. Suppose, in Mr. Sanford's absence, the earth quaked mightily and opened a giant fissure in Charleston. Even if the succession provision were absent from the state's constitution, Mr. Bauer would still call the National Guard, and the National Guard would still listen (unless both he and the guard's commander are indefensibly stupid).
The indignation from Sanford's opponents was rife, but South Carolinians seemed less so. For all the coverage of Sanford's time away, I have found only one comment from a constituent. It was in the Wall Street Journal, from a retired woman named Sarah Porter. She was strikingly unconcerned that Mr. Sanford was not there to hold her hand.
"Maybe he just wanted to be alone," she said. (She was guessing wrong, but her tone is of an entirely different chord from that by those in government.)
Bauer, the lieutenant governor, says : "Not to be able to get in touch with a person who is responsible for 4.5 million people is a concern."
Porter, the normal human being, knows that there are 4.5 million people in South Carolina and almost all of them know how to be responsible for themselves.
I've long heard descriptions of the Republican Party as racist. It's always been a source of confusion — which in turn leads to frustration, and ultimately rage — for me, but always before I've tried to internalize that anger.
I don't really know why I decided to externalize that feeling this time. Maybe it was just another straw, and finally it was one too many. In any case, I will not allow a column by commentator Leonard Pitts to go unanswered. Not this time. Not again.
He's hardly alone, of course. Leftists and Democrats have called Republicans "racists" for decades. Even some people I count as good friends have accused me of being a racist, just because I'm a Republican. And they have accused the Republican Party of institutional racism, without an ounce of evidence to back it up. But today I'm not going to take it without response.
In their efforts to win elections by piecing together near-unanimous conglomerations of minority groups, the Democratic Party has championed the notion that everyone is a member of an oppressed minority, and everyone deserves some "extra" consideration from "the system." In doing so, Democrats have fought for inner-city unemployment, illiteracy, imprisonment and perpetual poverty. Teachers' unions, which have forever found a patron in Democrats, do more harm in urban schools — where a vast majority of students are black — than they have done in any other part of the country.
Democrats have insisted that violent criminals are just "misunderstood" and ought to be released back into their homes, where they can continue to prey (as they have done for decades) on members of the very communities where they came from. In all too many cases, the victims of crime are black or Hispanic. Indefensible levels of taxes, regulations, government waste and central control of peoples' lives have obstructed economic development — more so in the mostly-black communities of inner cities than in the country at large.
With that record of human destruction, the only thing Democrats can do to win votes is call Republicans racists.
There is only one major political party in America that seeks to treat all Americans as equal individuals under the law, rather than categorizing millions of human beings into narrowly defined groups that must compete against each other and can achieve success only at the expense of another.
That is the Republican Party.
On the other hand, there is only one major political party in America that has championed slavery. There is only one major political party in America that has seceded from the Union, has taken its states to war against its countrymen, has shot bullets at fellow Americans, and has assassinated a president, for the right to own another human being, just because that other human being was of a different race.
There is only one major political party in America that proudly claims among its members a United States senator who was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, when Klansman David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana claiming to be a Republican, Republican President George Bush campaigned against him. Duke's opponent was known criminal Edwin Edwards, a former governor. The slogan of that campaign was: "Vote for the crook, it's important."
The Republican Party is far from infallible. And the Democratic Party is far from worthless. But from all my years of watching politics and studying history, I've learned this much: If one party is guilty of institutional racism, it is the Democratic Party; and if one party deserves praise for championing the equality of all human beings, it is the Republican Party.
The columnist Mr. Pitts can continue to insist that the GOP has a "race problem." He can also stand between Bob Barker and Taylor Swift, and write that Swift is way too old.
The second hit (I'm assuming this is a coincidence) was a feature story about Naked Hiking Day.
Whether or not Mr. Sanford wore clothes on his outing afield is his own business. Today I discuss the reactions from other South Carolina state officials, past and present.
Evidently, Sanford sneaked out for multiple days without telling the lieutenant governor (a separately elected position in that state, and in this case a political rival), legislators, his security detail, or even his wife, precisely where he was going. He turned off his cell phones and only infrequently called back to check in.
Staff members were aware of Sanford's intentions and of his vague destination. But they were unable to pinpoint exact geocoordinates of his location, nor were they able to speak to him on the hour every hour.
Some, including Bob McAlister, who served as chief of staff for a previous governor of that state, have argued that Sanford's actions were egregiously irresponsible and unprofessional. "From a professional standpoint, this can't happen," McAlister said. "It's very disconcerting."
State Sen. Jake Knotts shares Sanford's party but also has long been a rival to the governor (from what I've read, Sanford is far more popular with his constituents than he is with his coworkers in the state capitol). Knotts also has insisted on near-continuous connectivity with the governor.
"As the head of our state, in the unfortunate event of a state of emergency or homeland security situation, Governor Sanford should be available at all times," Knotts said. "I want to know immediately who is running the executive branch in the governor’s absence."
To an extent, this smacks of the universal criticism that politicians can lately expect from their political rivals; such actions have, unfortunately, become standard operating procedure in many political circles.
But I think it belies a reality far more disconcerting that the one worrying Messrs. Knotts and McAlister. That is the point I wish to address here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my continued fondness for Mr. Sanford.
In his absence from South Carolina, there have been no hurricanes, riots or floods. (And if there had, the state's Constitution grants the lieutenant governor authority to act in the governor's absence during emergencies. The National Guard can be duly called out, and requests for federal aid can be expeditiously made, even if the governor is in Timbuktu and has sworn a vow of silence.) Neither the hordes, nor the Yankees, have invaded. The state's police forces, its cities' fire departments, it's highways and bridges, they have all remained. Wal-Marts did not close down. Attorneys continue to litigate, doctors to heal, factories to produce, loggers to chop.
Despite Mr. Knox's demand to "know immediately who is running the executive branch," I have seen no reporting of private citizens sharing the same concerns. The lives of South Carolinians are entirely unaffected.
A governor is not the president of the United States — he has neither the responsibility nor the authority to handle foreign relations matters that do not rest. A governor (or senator, or other potentate of almost all description) can walk away for a few days and most people won't even notice if they don't see it on TV.
For all the attention paid to Mr. Sanford's (four days and counting) vacation, the world has not stopped. We don't need a guardian to remain in the governor's mansion, or even a phone call away, on call for every second of every day. Knox and McAlister seem to think that because the governor is on vacation, the rest of us will forget to wash our hands after we go to the bathroom, or to buckle up when we get in the car. They're wrong. We can survive just fine on our own.
Many news reports of Mr. Sanford's outing have used descriptors like "bizarre" to tell this story of a man who has a stressful job and wants a few days away. I have a theory on that: Mr. Sanford is a committed conservative who resisted the idiotic "economic stimulus" plan passed by the federal government earlier this year. He will command a tremendous and growing amount of respect in coming years as more people realize that the stimulus was a sham and a trillion dollars was wasted. My sense is, those who call his trip "bizarre" are trying desperately to paint him as an oddball.
Maybe he is. Maybe on Sunday he wandered the Appalachian Trail in full naked glory, with all the other oddballs. That doesn't matter that much, in the long run.
What matters is, for a few days an elected official did not insist on "fixing" something, did not seek a new rule to enact or a new tax to levy. He spent a few days not regulating, not managing, not enforcing. Or to put it another way, he spent a few days not trying "to improve peoples' lives."
Barbara Boxer, who is an elected representative of Californians in the U.S. Senate, surely embarrassed herself this week when she dressed down Army Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh for calling her "ma'am."
Obviously, little miss Barbie doesn't understand protocol: "Ma'am" is a title of respect. But she showed a far more important and more unflattering side of herself. She thinks her office is a "title," instead of an office of service.
The last time Americans had a government that insisted so fiercely on titles was in the 1770s — and we shot at them until they left. When an elected official starts feeling this self-important, they need to get out of the business.
I vaguely remember watching the news when the Berlin Wall fell, though I was far too young to grasp the event's significance. I more clearly remember the Persian Gulf War. The toppling of that massive Saddam Hussein statue.
Now we can watch the angry uprising of people who want to be free, against a vile government that thinks they ought not. I've previously praised Americans who rallied against our government, who had to endure a blustery, windy day to do so. The folks in Iran right now deserve far more honor: They're getting shot at.
We don't yet know if these events will reach the historical significance as those listed above. But they are beautiful to see.
Peggy Noonan made an interesting observation in her most recent column. Americans instinctively love freedom. When there is a conflict anywhere in the world, we naturally stand with the oppressed, with the ones seeking freedom. She writes: 'If you don't understand who the American people are for, put down this newspaper or get up from your computer, walk into the street and grab the first non-insane-looking person you meet. Say, "Did you see the demonstrations in Iran? It's the ayatollahs versus the reformers. Who do you want to win?" You won't just get "the reformers," you'll get the perplexed-puppy look, a tilt of the head and a wondering stare: You have to ask?'
When some of his political opponents chide President Barack Obama for failing to favor the Iranian people vociferously enough, Obama has an explanation with at least some validity. "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States."
We seem uninclined to rout by force the Ayatollah's government, and if we are not going to do so then the Iranian people must seize their freedom on their own — at least, any help offered from the outside must be more covert than overt.
Ultimately, U.S. activity in this regard ought to be whatever activity is most helpful to Iranians, and there are competing ideas on what will be most helpful.
But I suspect Obama has caught himself in a dilemma largely of his own making.
From the beginning, he has observed the framework that diplomacy is the only way to deal with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, that this evil government currently in place in Tehran is the only entity that can be dealt with because it's the one making the decisions.
Obama has since operated in a way that takes great care to avoid offending Ahmadinejad. In public appearances, speeches, greetings, Obama has rarely criticized or contradicted that government. The exception is his mention of Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust — but that Holocaust denial isn't nearly as evil as Ahmadinejad's repeated promises to melt Israel as soon as he gets a chance.
The larger point is, Obama knows Iran is one of our most important enemies, and he knows he needs to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. He has chosen to go about dealing with Iran via diplomacy, kind talk, listening. I think that has influenced his quieted reaction to the Iranian peoples' rallies for freedom.
I fear the harsh realities we see in Iran right now prove that — no matter how many kind overtures anyone makes — the government in Iran is only evil. It will only continue to do as it pleases, until someone throws it out. Attempting to negotiate the hatred away from the Ayatollahs will be no more effective than it was to negotiate the evil out of Hitler.
To the extent that he thinks speaking out forcefully will only hurt the cause of the freedom-seekers in Iran, Obama ought to hold his tongue. But to the extent that he is reserving himself to protect the prospect of more normalized relations with the Ayatollah government, he ought to give it up and call evil by name.
Posts
