Conservative's Conscience

A Hatful of Problems-No Solutions In Sight

The United States is surrounded with problems and there is a growing feeling that the federal government has no idea of what to do about them. 

This isn't the first time we've had a busy presidency.  Johnson and Nixon were as busy as any two presidents in history.  They didn't always perform as we would have liked, but most of us felt, rightly or wrongly, that they knew what they were doing -- both were re-elected by huge majorities.

Reagan was faced with the Iranian crisis, the Cold War, Central America turmoil, an out-of-control federal budget, a sick economy and the threat of national bankruptcy.  His decisions weren't always correct, but most of us felt he knew what he was doing -- he was re-elected by a huge majority.

George Bush, much like President Obama, was greeted with a recession that, among other things, resulted in a reduction in federal income (the most severe in modern presidential history), inclining federal deficits, a corporate scandal that shocked Wall Street, the devastating attack of 9-11 and the wars that followed. 

Bush didn't always do the right thing, but most of us believed he was in charge -- in 2004 he was re-elected with twelve million more votes than he got four years before.     

Today we once again have an administration faced with a variety of problems.  So far, they are not new ones.  There was plenty of time before, during and after the election to study them, and to devise, at the least, the appearance of confidence in dealing with them.  Perhaps over time, rightly or wrongly, we will come to believe the administration is in charge -- it has developed plans that will lead to solutions. 

That is not presently the case, for example:    

IRAQ

America, rightly or wrongly, invested considerable capital and American blood to bring Iraq to the state the new administration inherited in January 2009.  The threat of civil war was gone; there was safety on most streets; a reasonably stable government was in place; people voted from all sections of the country and the remaining issues to be negotiated by the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites had been reduced to a few. 

But the threat of Al-Qaeda and other mischief makers was still sufficient to maintain an American presence.  To hold gains -- to achieve promised benefits -- careful management was still needed.   

If the remaining days of the project went as planned, the United States would end up with another reliable friend in the Middle East (Israel is the other).  As a bonus, Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world and could serve as an invaluable ally against Iranian aggression. 

It was the job of the incoming administration to manage this project to a successful conclusion.  What has been done?

Discussion from Washington has seldom, if ever, mentioned the word "victory," or pointed to benefits that would flow from it.  Instead we get: Expressions of concerns over the civil rights of murderers who were captured on the battle field; arguments about when to free prisoners from the relatively luxurious accommodations of Guantanamo because Europeans disapprove of it; demands to prosecute C.I.A. personnel; plans to get out of Iraq as soon as possible irrespective of consequences; apologies for the actions of Americans during the war, etc. 

One gets the feeling that the management of the existing situation in Iraq is not in good hands; one suspects that making political points on this issue is more important than victory.

TERRORISM

"Terrorism" is an unfashionable word with the current administration.  Those who kill and bomb us are once again viewed as criminals (as they were under Clinton) who should be caught and processed through the American court system.

Is America at war?  Or is America dealing with a crime wave?  Which is it?

Being able to ask such questions at this stage of conflict with the bad guys is not comforting.

AFGHANISTAN

The war in Afghanistan was labeled by Democrats as the necessary war -- the legitimate war (as opposed to the Bush war in Iraq).  What is being done to win it?

Policy in Afghanistan has been largely unchanged.  The surge planned by Gen. Petraeus has yet to materialize. 

The government is not as stable as before.  Neighboring Pakistan is still a wobbly ally; the Taliban is stronger than ever; American commanders report the war will be lost absent the addition of about forty thousand new troops; the administration (which announced in March it had devised changed policy) has not responded to the request for troops, on the grounds that policy must again be reviewed.  More than likely, the decision is being avoided because of political pressure from the far left. 

The field commander may resign if administration support is not forthcoming.   

The handling of this war has been erratic and unproductive.  National confidence in the competence of the administration has waned.

NORTH KOREA

North Korea, holder of nuclear weapons, has been firing test missiles like firecrackers,   since Obama was elected, thumbing its nose at warnings to behave.  The sureness of how to handle this problem, articulated so frequently by Democrats for years, is no longer observable.  

Zero progress has been made on this front.

RUSSIA

The U.S. announced under the previous administration, over the objection of Russia, its intention to establish missile defenses in Eastern Europe as a deterrent against the war-making capacities of the rogue nation, Iran.

Under the current administration, the missile defense plan has been scrapped with no apparent quid pro quo from Russia.    

This is viewed by the world as a sign of American weakness. 

IRAN/ISRAEL

Iran has just fired its latest barrage of test missiles with the range to reach American troops in Iraq, many European cities and Israel. 

Iran threatens to destroy Israel; it refuses the United Nation's request to investigate its nuclear development program, which is being supported by Russia. 

Thus far, the administration's reaction to Iran has been to repeat warnings that are ignored, to schedule talks and to criticize Israel for not being more cooperative in its peace negotiations with Palestinians.

No mention is made of the fact that Iran supports the aggressive tactics of Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Hamas (Palestine) that for years have kept Israel under attack.  One is not sure that the administration knows what to do about this situation. 

Tiny Israel will probably be forced to demonstrate to America and the world how leaders make necessary decisions.  If no help is in sight, it will probably cripple Iran's nuclear capacity within eighteen months. 

What will happen next?  God only knows.

HEALTH CARE

President Obama announced on several occasions he favors socialized medicine in the Canadian/European model.  Other Democratic leaders agree.  They never demonstrate why they believe it will be a better system for the patient -- focus seems to be on cost, not quality. 

First, Obama insisted on a government plan in competition with private plans; next, he felt a government plan would be nice, but not imperative; now, Democrats are debating over a cooperative plan (a government plan in sheep's clothing).     

Since Democrats have been trying to socialize American medicine for more than a century, most notably under Clinton, one would think they would, by this time, know how to get it, especially when they own a veto-proof Congress, which is the case today.  But they don't know how. 

Why?  Because it's very difficult to be sneaky and believable at the same time; because they won't level with us; because they know they can't pass socialized health care under that name (some Democrats would not support it); because to get it they must devise a way to fool us -- some complicated way to get enough of it established in law so that it will inevitably evolve into socialized form.   

Obama has repeatedly claimed there is at least $500 billion of fraud in the Medicare system that will pay for the system change.  Question: If so, why wait for legislation to pass.  Go get it!  

If the handling of this problem wasn't so serious, it would be funny.  But indeed it is serious. 

America as we know it will be lost if the administration gets what it wants.  To see our future, look at toothless societies in Europe, which can no longer defend themselves --   social programs have eaten up their revenue.  Or look at European patients who can't get care because it is rationed, or because waiting lines are too long -- or because of the doctor shortage.

ENERGY

If the administration's health care initiative does not destroy America, its cap and trade energy program will. 

Sold as a solution to America's need for energy independence, the entire idea is a huge fraud, based upon wobbly evidence that the globe is dangerously warming and mankind is responsible for it, largely because of its dependence on fossil fuels.

One does not turn an economy upside down based upon the speculations of a former vice president supported by carefully selected "experts."  Temperatures have been cooling for a decade; many climatologists debunk the alarmist claims that support cap and trade. 

History will record U.S. stupidity over the energy question since the 1970s.  The solution is simple to state, if difficult to achieve. 

The first priority is to get away from dependence on foreign energy by producing our own -- oil, gas, coal, nuclear and anything else that will turn on a light bulb, or energize an engine.    

The second step is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for environmental reasons, and irrespective of climate change arguments. 

These obvious steps are not taken for a reason, for example: Cap and trade results in a huge flow of revenue to the federal government that will begin whenever it says so, and will continue ad infinitum.  In fact, the administration's energy program is a huge tax increase.

One does not get the feeling that the administration is on top of the energy problem. 

One solution to this mess?  Vote every office holder out when the next election comes, and continue to do so for so long as sensible challengers appear until those in charge begin to govern for us, not for themselves.