Conservative's Conscience

Cap and Trade - and Sink

Some irrefutable knowledge is intuitive, for example:

• Taxes should not increase during a recession because they penalize the private sector, which needs its money to live, invest, expand and save jobs.
• Taxes should decrease during a recession because the private sector benefits from a lighter tax burden and makes more probable new investment and expansion that leads to more jobs, and recovery.
• Any government program that takes money from the private sector is a tax, no matter what lawmakers call it.  As such, however worthy the cause, during a recession it must be shelved for another day.
• Bills that affect the nation dramatically should not be presented for passage until members have had a chance to read them (power politics), and should never be approved by any politician until read (constitutional oath).

The above statements are the equivalent of: Two plus two is four.  Those who refuse to accept the obvious because it is, for some reason, uncomfortable, have no legitimate seat at the table of serious debate.

The House of Representatives by a 219-212 vote just passed the Cap and Trade act -- 44 of Democrats (17%) and almost all Republicans (95%) voted against it.  Few, if any of them, knew the details of what they were voting for or against.

Democrats tout the bill as being a measure that will improve national security, protect the environment, create jobs and make America a net exporter of energy.  Its functional goal is to cut greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent in 2050.  It mandates that 20 percent of electrical energy by 2020 must come from renewable sources and from conservation (presumably because of high prices etc.). 

These goals will be achieved by putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions from electric utilities, coal plants, manufacturers, farmers, refineries and others under something called a cap and trade system, the effect of which will send a flood of money to Washington and cause higher prices for everything in the market. 

The bill will cause hardships.  Accordingly it contains promises of financial assistance for transition costs to polluters and to consumers.  But off the record, some eye this cash flow as the never-ending source of support for more social programs.  When the two ideas clash the assistance to the private sector will predictably diminish. 

According to the president and his supporters, the cost to the consumer will be trivial.  Nobody else agrees.

Sit back.  Cross your legs and relax.  Let's think about this together, point by point.

o       This was presidential/leadership legislation forced on members as a loyalty test.  Most representatives didn't know what they voted for.    

o       Bills that cost a lot now, and promise benefits sometime, are not easy to swallow. 

o       "Polluters" today were the backbone of the U.S. energy system yesterday and will be for a time to come.  Somebody once said: "Never poke a stick at a bear."   That is good advice for those inclined to trash the private sector at every opportunity. 

o       The cap and trade system, according to the Financial Post, will bring to Washington by 2050 almost $500 billion a year in permit fees.  It may or may not create net new jobs; it may or may not improve energy independence.  But one thing is sure: It is a tax system that is being sold to the public under false colors.  As such, it should not be considered in 2009 -- it will lengthen the recession and hinder recovery.     

o       The promise not to raise taxes on lower income groups rings hollow when a bill is passed that removes money from the same class in the form of an increased cost of living.

o       The current recession has many causes.  The lack of a cap and trade system isn't one of them.  Let's fix the economy first -- tend to business -- take care of other things later.  What's the hurry?   

o       The urgency for cap and trade was originally based upon the noble objective to save the planet from the ravages of global warming, as outlined by Al Gore.  Notice: "global warming" isn't mentioned anymore.  The buzz words these days are "climate change" and "environmental concerns."  There is a reason for this.  Evidence mounts daily that mankind (fossil fuels/carbon monoxide/greenhouse gases) is not responsible for climate change, and that warming observed is cyclical and natural -- that Goreology is junk science..     

o       The whole functional purpose of cap and trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20l7, and practically eliminate them by 2050.  Why?  If cap and trade was triggered by Goreology, and if Goreology is, at least, doubted and, at worst, is a colossal error, why turn the American economy upside down to pursue its objectives? 

o       A clean environment, apart from Goreology, is a common American objective that can be gradually resolved in a less dramatic, and a more timely way than cap and trade.

o       A movement away from fossil fuels is a common American objective that can be gradually resolved within an energy program that uses all resources of the United States, plus government support that direct American energies toward such things as renewable forms of energy production, including nuclear.  

o       The cap and trade system has nothing to do with gasoline, except to increase the price of it.  Gasoline accounts for about half of U.S. oil imports.  Reliance upon them is the national security aspect of the immediate problem.  It should be more directly attacked as the primary short-term objective of any energy program.  It can be done, quicker and better than cap and trade, and at a lower cost.  In fairness, separate initiatives are aimed at this, but not with sufficient intensity.   

o       Fossil fuels will be with us for years to come.  The goal should be to maximize the use of those that can be locally produced in an environmentally reasonable (not perfect) manner.

There is no need for this legislation.  It does nothing that could not be done less intrusively.  Leadership in this area has been lacking for a half century.  It still is. 

There are, should be and always will be differences between Democrats and Republicans.    But this (and, by the way, health care) is a major national issue that should not be politicized.  There are common objectives:

o       To be energy independent.

o       To minimize pollutants for environmental (not global warming) reasons.   

Given that as a beginning point, wise heads from both sides of the aisle, guided by experts, properly motivated could come up with a palatable program that both sides could  live with.

The cap and trade bill would not see the light of day if Democrats were not in power with a near veto-proof majority, which they want to exploit before the elections of 2010.  It will pass in the Senate unless independents and some Democrats think more of their country than they do about passing the biggest tax bill since the income tax became law under Woodrow Wilson.

Read anything but liberal propaganda and you will find all the information you need to scream from the rooftops:"Stop this insanity." 

If approved as law, cap and trade will increase the cost of everything that moves, it will lessen America's international competitive position (China is building a new coal plant every four days), it will cost jobs as well as create them, it will decrease America's GDP (according to Heritage Foundation) and it will continue America's dependence on foreign oil for years to come, something that could be reduced overnight if we turned loose the  internal capacities of the nation (drilling/clean coal).     

The ball now moves to the Senate.  Burn your partisan hat.  Think American.  Make your voice heard.  Fight against this bill. 

Or sit back, and watch your kids pay the price.     

17 comments »

Closed Music Theater, victim of a changing culture

The generation gap and its impact on American culture
Hip Hop, I-Pods, MTV, changing tastes end a half century old tradition

The 1,800-seat, in-the-round style theatre, reached almost 400,000 people annually with its musical theatre performances, celebrity concerts, Shakespearean plays, and children's programming. Its 24,000 subscribers once made it the largest such theatre in New England, and placed it among the top ten of its kind in the nation.  

Beverly's North Shore Music Theater announced recently that its fifty-four year run is over.  An operation devoted to youth education and to the staging of original as well as famous musical shows, the theater will be missed by the thousands who supported it for a half century.

Various reasons are given for the inability of NSMT to continue.  The practical one, of course, is that it has debt up to its hips with not a chance to pay it off.  This includes $2.5 million owed to subscribers who paid in advance for the upcoming season that will never arrive.   

But the real reason for the closing, the one that has been eroding the revenue base for years, is never discussed - the generation gap and its impact on American culture.

The theater was best known for its re-creation of famous Broadway hits into a format that fit its stage-in-the-round.  Regardless of the content of the show itself, the production values (costumes, staging, musical accompaniment, etc.) were dependably imaginative and expertly presented.

No musical theater from Cape Cod to Ogunquit had more attractive offerings.

Concerning show content, no musical theater from Cape Cod to Ogunquit had more attractive offerings.  The music of all of America's great composers, Gershwin, Porter, Rogers and others, filled the enclosed dome to the delight of....

To the delight of whom?  That is the question.  And the answer to it explains the demise of NSMT.

Since the 1960s, American culture has gradually changed.  Finally, those who have resisted some aspects of change have been overcome by those who insisted upon a complete rejection of the old in favor of the new.  And the consequence of the shift has been to create empty seats in theaters that used to turn customers away. 

Why?

Tastes have changed.  Fifty years ago, the audience was made up of the young, middle-aged and seniors.  Thirty years ago, the young were hard to find in the better musical theaters, which were then supported by the middle-aged and the seniors - and there were plenty of them. 

But sometime after that, theater managers noticed that demand for tickets was dropping, and the audience was increasingly composed of white haired devotees who were not being replaced, as they once were. 

To attract a younger audience, one night appearances of popular personalities were mixed in with musical shows that ran for at least a week. 

But here too, theater managers bumped into the generation gap - personalities attractive to the white heads were ignored by the young; those attractive to the young were ignored by seniors.  And managers needed both, at both kinds of shows, to an increasing degree as the older generation died off. 

No satisfactory mixture was ever found.  Other summer theaters were closed for the same reason.  Beverly is the most recent and, perhaps, the most dramatic.

We are in fact witnessing the slow death of a culture.  The music of the operetta (say, Victor Herbert), has disappeared entirely.  The compositions of composers like Rogers or Berlin (who perhaps captured the American heart more than any other composer) is now sneered at as elevator music.  Shows with a story to tell (My Fair Lady) are ignored or dismissed as cornball.  All of this is now silenced in Beverly and in most other venues.

Change, of course, is natural.  And there has always been a degree of tension between the tastes of older and younger generations, but never before to the extent that exists today.  It is apparent in every field of endeavor.  But change for the sake of it is self-destructive.  Is that the case here?  Have no alternatives been offered?

Yes, they have, for example: Instead of, say, The King and I, we have Hair.  Interesting and meaningfully, some folks actually think this is an upgrade.   

The problem is that the modern replacement for the best musicals doesn't draw its own generation in sufficient numbers to keep the musical theater alive as it once was, pouring new material into the market year after year.  Broadway, the engine of the art form is, for all practical purposes, dead. 

Columns like this are jumped on as the ramblings of a man who isn't with it.  I suppose there is truth in that -- but not much. 

As one who sang professionally for years, I know the difference between good music and junk.  Those who turn their backs on America's great composers are rejecting a priceless gift that, if accepted, would never stop giving. 

Popular music today is filled with tasteless and tuneless poetry, simplistic, over-arranged songs and an occasional good piece of music that somehow manages to survive.   

Richard Rodgers, Ethel Merman, Frank Sinatra, Benny Goodman, Ella Fitzgerald and Fred Astaire were outstanding contributors to America's musical culture.  They couldn't make a living today doing what they do best.  To survive they would have to buy a guitar and a funny hat.

When that can be said about any culture...

8 comments »

Leave a comment »

Health Care-Government, Market or Both

President Obama has started his major push to nationalize health care.  He doesn't call it that; his plan has a free market component.  Under it, he says, you can keep your doctor or your existing plan if you so choose.  But I know, and you should know, that remarks like this represent pure salesmanship that is designed to get you into a system that will inevitably lead to nationalized health insurance. 

Nationalized health care has been an objective of the Democratic Party ever since the principles of the progressive movement became an integral part of its 1916 platform.  It got renewed life under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton, and it is back with us again under President Obama. 

Johnson almost got the job done (Medicaid and Medicare); now Obama want to complete the mission. 

So ignore descriptions of a proposed plan that will allegedly feature fair competition between the public and private sector offerings.  Balderdash!  Fairness will never exist; the rule maker (the government) will be the survivor.    

The plan is described this convoluted way because history has taught liberals that socialism, as such, can't be sold to most Americans.  It must be injected in gradual doses accompanied by flowery language (e.g., The Great Society; War on Poverty, etc.)  

But the bottom line is this: Universal health care was, is and always will be the ultimate prize being sought by Democrats, and the initial plan -- however described -- will be a large step in that direction, one that will establish a momentum that will quickly eliminate any private sector component.

For proof of this, Google the condition of private health plans in Canada today and, while you're at it, examine the health of private practices, and the shortage of doctors.

The language being used to sell the Democratic plan is as simple as it is devious.  It goes like this:  If the existing health care system has significant problems, change is mandated.  The existing system does have significant problems.  Therefore, it should be changed.  

There's nothing wrong with that line of reasoning.  The premise is sound; the conclusion flows normally. 

But here's where the logic falls apart.  Obama adds one more step to the syllogism, to wit:  If change is demanded, nationalized health insurance is the answer.  Change is demanded.  Therefore, nationalized health insurance is mandated. 

If you buy Obama's premise, you must accept his conclusion.  But his premise isn't sound.  Nationalized health insurance is not the only response to the need to change the system.  Beyond that, it's a possible course of action that no reasonable person would elect if he/she examined its history in Canada, Europe and elsewhere. 

Another comment made on the stump is that to reject Obama's approach is to say that nothing should be done.  Not so.  Something should be done to repair the existing system and the form of that effort will require the combined efforts of all segments of society.         

The first step in reaching a reasonable solution is the need to reach agreement among the political parties that this is a national, not a partisan, problem that must be approached objectively with the full intention of sharing any fallout from the project, positive or negative, equally.

The second broad step is to reach agreement on the position that, totally apart from the question of quality care, the current system is too expensive for the federal government.  For example, the cost of Health and Medicare line items in the federal budget in 1998 was $324 billion -- 28 percent of all revenue; in 2008, the same items cost $681 billion -- 48 percent of all revenue. 

The third step is to agree that we are no longer rich.  As a matter of fact, we are in perilous financial condition.  We have spent the wealth that once was ours over six decades of federal deficits -- every president since Truman added to the national public debt.  The federal budget is out of whack.  Fixing that problem could save badly needed money.  And while we're doing it, we need to stop lending money we don't have, and start spending it on problems that are breaking our financial backs.

There is one more piece of underbrush that needs to be cleared away before problem solvers can get to work.  Interested parties must agree that there is no global solution to health care -- it is not one problem.  It is many small problems that have to be appraised and solved, one by one, until the broad picture of a general scheme comes into view. 

It is likely, and appropriate, that government will continue to play an important role in the final solution (long-term care, comes to mind).  But being who we are, and what we have learned from other nations, that role should not be a controlling one. 

If political leaders could agree on such things, and retain a group of qualified problem solvers, perhaps weaknesses in the current system could be rationally addressed, for example:

• Foreign markets of U.S. companies are mostly controlled by socialistic foreign governments.  Either modern drugs are ignored (at the expense of patients), or price discounts are demanded.  The consequence is that American consumers pay for most of the research and developments costs of U.S. companies in the form of higher prices.  U.S. companies need state department support here.  Those who benefit from American science should pay for the privilege.
• The net profit of drug companies (not the pricing of individual drugs) should be carefully monitored by government auditors, ever alert for profiteering at the consumer's expense.
• Payroll taxes are not, and never have been, an appropriate financing mechanism for health care programs.  Another way must be found. 
• No temporarily unemployed American should be without medical insurance.  This could be a useful place for government support.
• Qualifying income/asset levels for Medicaid are too low.  Those who can't take care of themselves should have nothing to prove except need.    
• Those who are, and who will be, chronically poor should be identified and insured under controls that minimize abuse.  This is another area where government could serve.
• Emergency rooms in hospitals should treat all patients and refer them to a newly created government agency that insures such people.  If they don't appear, they should be posted, located and, if need be, deported.  
• Those who prefer to self-insure who appear at emergency rooms must pay.  Refer unpaid accounts to collection attorneys.
• Insurable parents who are uninsured should be held accountable for the health of their children.  Should the child suffer because of the uninsured parent, the parent should be charged with neglect; the child should thereafter be watched by social services.
• Diseases or therapies unusually costly and lengthy should be removed from private sector coverage and assigned to a government insurance agency.  Premiums should be charged that are reasonable, relative to the patient's circumstances.  A by-product of this direct intervention of government would be lower costs and premiums in the private sector.
• Government should verify that private sector services are offered by many competing firms, being especially alert to any form of price gouging. 

Is this all that needs to be examined?  Of course not!  But it's enough to persuade a reasonable man that a single global solution (throwing money at the problem) to health care isn't possible. 

What is possible, however, is that we're so far down the road to socialism that we may have forgotten how to tackle and solve big problem when, up front, we know the solutions are going to hurt. 

And hurt they will.

The U.S. has been, and is, throwing money around as if there were no rules in the game of finance.  Not so.  There are rules; we've been breaking them; we will pay.

And it will hurt.      

6 comments »

Universal Health Care-Why?

The biggest jewel in the legislative crown of President Obama in 2009 is universal health care.  It won't be called that, because it was shot down before under that name.  And to avoid another failure, and the hot-button charge of socialism, Obama's plan will contain a private sector component and a theoretical "choice" for consumers. 

But in a game in which government is both creator and controller of the rules, its plan isn't likely to lose.  The private sector, controlled by government, will gradually shrink into the nothing it currently is in Canada.      

The Obama plan, or anything like it, wouldn't stand a chance of becoming law in this nation if it weren't for three factors:

• The American public is notoriously apathetic about public policy until, when or if it obviously hits their pocketbooks.  The proof of this lies in the mature existence of Great Society programs in the federal budget, to disastrous fiscal effect, that they never voted for or against during the past five decades -- yet they have them, and the national debt they caused. Obama's plan is a reincarnation of an old idea that progressives and liberals have dreamed about for at least 70 years.
• The elite media support Obama's plan and will give the glare of publicity to its attractive feature (accessibility to everyone) while ignoring the dismal history of similar plans in other nations.
• Obama has so far sold the false proposition that health care reform is a necessary part of an economic recovery program.  Now he is trying to make nationalized health care the definition of reform.  Clever!  To agree with the former (reform) is to accept the latter (nationalization).  Not so.  The first is true; the second is only one possible solution path, and it has an alarming historical record.

But let's return for a moment to first things.  Why does Obama, or anyone, want to install nationalized health insurance in the freedom-loving United States -- to put government in charge of 16 percent of the national economy with power to affect daily lives and -- worst of all -- the life span of individuals?

The response to this question is repeated ad nauseam: There are 44-47 million uninsured Americans.  The inference, never clarified, is this: Uninsured Americans are being deprived of medical treatment.  

Hogwash!   

This problem demands more precision in diagnosis before treatment is prescribed, a problem-solving approach avoided by politicians who have an agenda that is best pursued in the shadows.   

Reports from CDC (Center for Disease Control), the Bureau of Census and elsewhere verify the uninsured number.  But other, more meaningful things are also reported that seldom appear in the national news:

o       Most uninsureds are in the 18-34 age bracket -- males dominate.

o       Hispanics, blacks and high school dropouts are uninsured to a far greater extent than others.

o       The uninsured are not spread equally across the nation; those with the highest immigrant population, legal and illegal, have the worst numbers -- states like Arizona, Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina.

o       About 40 percent of the uninsured earn more than $50,000; 68 percent earn more than $25,000. 

o       To be classified as uninsured, one must not have health insurance, including Medicaid, of any kind.  Any citizen or legally admitted immigrant with limited income and assets can qualify for Medicaid.

o       There is perhaps a group of six million people who are chronically uninsured as opposed to the 44-47 million that get the headlines. 

Let's summarize. 

• The United States has already nationalized much of the health care industry with its Medicare and Medicaid programs.  Any American or legally admitted alien can at least qualify for Medicaid when his/her income and assets get too low.  
• Despite this, about six million people are chronically uninsured.  Why?  Why don't they apply for Medicaid?
• An exaggerated number of Hispanics, blacks and high school dropouts are on and off the uninsured rolls.  This rollover group represents a social problem that goes beyond insurance plans.  But, why are not more of them on Medicaid? 
• Perhaps half (or more) of the uninsured represent another rollover group, most of them young, who prefer not to be insured.  Are they a problem?  Why?   
• Poor immigration control is a root cause of the Hispanic aspect of the uninsured problem.  Lack of assimilation effort, a popular part of today's obsession with multiculturalism, may explain why more Hispanics are not on Medicaid rolls.  

Put on your common sense hat.  Do you see 47 million people in the above analysis who are deprived of medical care by the cruel American system?  Do you see justification to junk the system that has been responsible for more medical advances than any other nation in the world?  Have you any idea of the international misery that will be caused if America's "medical idea factory" is destroyed by busybody bureaucrats?  And if you're still wavering, consider the following:

o       Every hospital in the nation with an emergency room must treat any patient who arrives.

o       Emergency room treatment in American hospitals is superior to the treatment available under government plans in places like Canada, England and Germany for medical conditions that require the use of modern technology and techniques. 

o       On a personal note: I, a cancer survivor, would probably be dead had I been born in any nation with socialized medicine.  Tens of thousands of Americans could say the same.

This information will leave fervid Obama acolytes untouched, but one hopes that a few open minds may be led to investigate further.

A final note.  Nationalized medicine is not new.  Why is it that those who seek it for us do not explain how it is working for others?  Let's use Canada as an example.

Waiting time for surgery in Canada is 18 weeks; 13 weeks for an MRI; six weeks for a CT scan; dozens of diagnostic and therapeutic products available for decades are unavailable in Canada -- in many hospitals, even basic equipment is limited or in poor repair; sick Canadians routinely cross the border to get U.S. medical treatment; the availability of doctors, especially in far out regions, is a growing problem.  The Canadian Medical Association said: ""Shortages have led to an unconscionable delay in treatment," especially on diseases "like cancer, heart disease and debilitating bone and joint ailments."

In Canada, and in England, 72 percent of the people say the health care system should be junked or radically changed; in Germany, 78 percent feel the same. 

Of course health care reform is necessary.  But should universal care be seriously considered, given its miserable history?  Not to speak of the invasion of the doctor/patient relationship that would, thereunder, have a cold-eyed cost accountant as a diagnostic partner.   

Like most big problems seriously approached by those who seek results instead of power and headlines, this one needs step by step solutions to its individual components:

For example:

• Are hospitals billing those with means for services rendered? 
• Should immigration policy be revisited? 
• Why are Hispanics avoiding Medicaid?  Could it be that those counted as uninsured do not qualify because they are illegal aliens?  Or is language and fear of authority the problem? 
• Are those who remain uninsured voluntarily a problem if they pay for services rendered?  Isn't it their right to self-insure (it saves, say, $100,000 in 10 years)?

America has programs to help the disadvantaged and the needy. No more massive plans are needed in a federal budget already overburdened with old ones. 

Adjust what we have.  And leave us alone.

10 comments »

College-Education or Indoctrination

Bait and switch, a familiar retail term, normally refers to promises made to lure potential customers, which the maker thereof has no intention to keep, and doesn't keep.  But one of the best examples of this nefarious technique now appears in a surprising place, the education field, more precisely, America's colleges. 

They promise to educate; instead, many believe they indoctrinate; they promise to graduate informed young Americans eager and capable of becoming useful citizens; instead they too often regurgitate anti-American activists with a perverted view of what America has been, and can be, and of what/who they are and can be. 

A great example of this educational bait and switch recently took place at Notre Dame, the most famous Catholic educational institution.  It, among others things, is supposed to train young Catholics in the principles and beliefs of their religion, one of which is the protection of life at all stages (anti-abortion).

You by this time have heard about the recent spectacle of hypocrisy that featured the bestowal of honors, by Notre Dame, on President Obama, one of the most proactive pro-abortion politicians in the nation.     

The president is faultless in this escapade.  Why should he worry about the unwillingness of others to defend their own root principles?  Why ignore the chance to demonstrate to fellow Democrats that he has political control over the institution -- the Catholic Church-- that, more than any other, opposes the traditional stance of Democrats on abortion.  He tamed it during the election (54 percent of Catholics supported him), and he did it again when one of America's leading Catholic institutions, the mighty Notre Dame, conferred upon him an honorary degree.    

After all, if Papa Tiger has no teeth, why worry about the cubs?

Notre Dame had no obligation to invite the president to speak, and there wasn't the remotest reason for signaling him out for an honorary degree.  All of this was voluntarily done with, presumably, one thing in mind: To capture the biggest prize on graduation day, the president of the United States -- to get publicity.  How gauche. 

The consequences? 

Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, pulled a bait and switch on the parents of Catholic students who attend the university, and on the other parents who selected that school because they admire Catholic ethics. 

Instead of defending a basic tenet of the Catholic faith in full view of its students, it abandoned it.  And, more broadly, it gave status to the pro-abortion position which -- given the prestige of the source -- will lead other Catholics astray.    

In making such statements I am not blaming the president, nor am I taking a position on the question of abortion.  The focus of this section of the column is Notre Dame, what it claims to be and what it really is.

Answer.  It claims to be Catholic.  It isn't.  It is cheating its customers. 

Is this hypocrisy singular, minimal or rampant? 

It is rampant.  If you're sending a student to college, chances are you are being abused, and your child is being indoctrinated into a way of thinking you would never accept for yourself, and would certainly never pay to get.

To make my point, I will briefly outline basic courses being offered to black, female and homosexual students at many top schools in the nation.

Duke University

 Tuition:$45,000; Students: 11,000; Reputation: Among the top ten in the nation.

Department of African and African-American studies.

• Courses established: Duke as a Plantation; Duke/Durham Plantations; Marxist and Queer Black Trouble Makers.

Department of English

• Courses established: Marxism and Society; To Be a Problem (a study of blacks as outcasts).

Department of Sociology

• Courses established: CompRace/Ethnic Studies (a study of white racism in America); Poverty, Inequality and Health (an attack on America's private health system).

Department of Anthropology   

• Courses established: Gender and Culture (teaches that gender is a social construct). 

University of Colorado

 Tuition: $25,000 (out of state); Students: 28,000; Reputation: A "Public Ivy" school (state-supported elite education)

Department of Sociology

• Courses established: Modern Marxist theory; Feminist Theory 5006 (understanding the oppression of women); Feminist theory 5036 (teaches feminist "doctrine"); Graduate Feminist Methods (how to research feminism); Sex and Gender in Society (gender is a social construct); Social Conflict and Social Values: (how to create a radical movement); Whiteness Studies (America is racist dominated by whites); etc.

Other Departments

• Courses established: Women's Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies, Black Studies, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Studies

Other Courses established

• Contents are essentially the same: America is racist ruled by white men; gender is a social construct; blacks, homosexuals and women are victims; anti-government activism is the answer.

Note: This is the University of Ward Churchill, the anti-American professor who had plagiarized the works of other scholars and had been lying about his background for years.  It took national publicity to provoke his ultimate dismissal.  After looking at the above school offerings, one can understand why.   

PENN STATE

Tuition: $24,000 (out of state); Students: 84,000; Reputation: High rank in business, science and economics.  

Department of Sociology

• Courses established: Introduction to American Studies (American culture has a history of brutality): American Studies (a critique of the free market system); Introduction to Women's Studies (women are victims); Introduction to Women's Studies (aimed at recruiting feminists); Women's Studies 001 (the ideology of radical feminism); Women's Studies 502 (a global attack on capitalism and free markets), Racism is for Whites Only (American society and its institutions are racist); Inequality in America (white racism is a constant; black racism does not exist).

Had enough?  The list goes on and on.  Private and public colleges from coast to coast routinely and uncritically teach anti-Americanism, racism and discrimination to young people who in two decades will be manning the most powerful posts in the nation, or who, in a time of strife may be called on to defend ....  What?  The country they've been taught to hate?    

This tripe is what your sons and daughters are being exposed to in the colleges of America, and it's being subsidized by the U.S. Government via the education loan and grant programs that make possible the fat tuition tabs at most schools. 

And to add insult to injury, the instructors and the text material found in these classrooms is generally inferior and biased against everything American -- its history, culture and market system.  Marxism, assumed by many to have died with the Soviet Union, is alive and well in America's universities.

If your child is involved in business or science programs he/she will be protected from the worst of this intellectual plague.  But if they are pursuing degrees in the soft sciences (education, sociology, etc.) do not expect that the child you sent to college will emerge as you had hoped and expected.  Teachers have a powerful impact on young minds, and the privilege you have given them to guide your youngsters, especially women and blacks, is being abused.

Those in search of more information of this type should begin with: "One-Party Classroom", by David Horowitz.

12 comments »

Obama, Wartime President

What he promised and what he's done

War was the central issue in the 2008 presidential contest until the housing crisis hit the front pages several months before Election Day.  Until that time, McCain was close in all polls -- ahead in some.  Thereafter, especially when the condition of banks became known, the economy moved to the forefront, and in that context, McCain began to fade.

Obama coasted to an easy electoral win (365-173) with 53 percent of the popular vote.  In a geographic sense, his victory was not a mandate.  The South, except for Virginia, North Carolina and Florida was McCain territory, as was the West, except for New Mexico, Colorado and the West coast states.  His was a clear victory, but not a mandate.  The nation was, and is, a divided one.

Although war was not the decisive issue in the campaign, it was important to Obama because his stance on war issues made him beloved to the far left, with its high visibility and plentiful resources. 

It is useful to list a few of the promises made to his supporters before time erases them completely from memory:

o       The Iraq war must end; troops must come home.

o       The Afghanistan war is essentially conducted to capture Osama bin Laden.  When that happens (which he pledged to do) the need for that war will end.

o       Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace and will be closed.

o       American reputation has been smirched by the use of interrogation techniques on prisoners that are inhumane, bordering on (if not actually) torture, which -- to compound the problem -- were ineffective.

o       Transparency in an Obama administration will make America safer.     

The Iraq war

 A schedule of disengagement was negotiated with the Iraqi government before Bush left office; there has been no attempt to change it.  The rate of troop withdrawal has been subject to conditions on the ground, as was the case under Bush.    

The current plan is to reduce troops by 12,000 in September 2009 -- a determination made by field commanders and approved by Obama.   

In short, the Iraqi situation has not changed since the election.

Afghanistan

Obama sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in February -- more are in training to go in the near future.

Overseas troop assignments have gone up, not down, and threaten to increase further as situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan deteriorate.

Osama bin Laden, still alive, will probably outlive most of us.

Guantanamo Bay

 "Gitmo" is a modern military prison located on the southeast corner of Cuba, which operates under a 1903 treaty with the host government that was in 1934 reaffirmed.  It is an ideal location for war prisoners who are dedicated to the destruction of the United States and its interests. 

Over 500 prisoners have gone through Gitmo, about 250 remain.  Three were subjected to waterboarding that, by some, is called "advanced interrogation," and, by others, "torture."   They were: A high-level al Qaeda operative, the man who planned 9-11 and the one who led the attack on the American warship, the U.S.S. Cole. 

The controversial interrogation procedures took place shortly after 9-11 when the whole world, including the Bush administration, wondered where and when the next explosion would take place.  The interrogations followed guidelines prepared by the Justice Department, which required -- among other things -- the presence of a physician.

For reasons that go beyond the reach of this column, the procedures became known to the elite media.  Headlines followed.  The far left led by the ACLU pounced.  In a week, Gitmo became the American "torture" camp. 

The impression was left -- and continues -- that what was done to these three men was commonplace behavior.  The whole process and those involved in it, from the president down to the prison guards, were stigmatized.  That image flashed to Europe and to the Middle East.  America was self-mutilated before the whole world -- for domestic political reasons. 

Obama promised to close Gitmo, in deference to the outcry from the left, national and international.  When he became president, he said it would be closed in a year.

Gitmo is still open.  Congress (Democratic controlled) refused to authorize funds needed to close it because the president doesn't know what to do with the prisoners.  Foreign nations are uncooperative.  There is even talk of freeing some, and supporting them with U.S. tax dollars. 

In short, the president issued an order he will be unable to execute in a year.  And it's becoming increasingly clear that Gitmo is the best place for these monsters to be.

American reputation

 It is difficult to take seriously the comments of Obama and others about the need to re-establish a positive American image in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.  Since 2002, Democrats, ably assisted by the elite media, have insulted the American president in loud voices heard round the world.   

When leading Americans disrespect their president so openly on issues of international impact is it any wonder that, sooner or later, the same attitude takes hold elsewhere? 

It did.  And the argument can be made that the American liberal (assisted, by the way, by John McCain) has done more to tarnish the reputation of the United States than any other foreign power or conglomeration of foreign newspapers.  And today, they (and we) are reaping the harvest of the seeds they planted.    

And it is important to note that Europe, socialist for many years, has also undergone a significant invasion of Muslim immigrants who have made it increasingly unstable as an ally.  It is no wonder that Bush, a conservative in many (not all) things, was not popular there. 

Obama has smiled his way around the globe since his inauguration.  But nothing important has changed. 

• More troops in Afghanistan from Europe will not take place -- support payments promised to Afghanistan are delinquent.
• Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are still making peace with Israel impossible.
• North Korea is as erratic as ever.
• Russia is more belligerent than it has been in years.
• China is leading an attack on the value and status of the U.S. dollar.

Transparency vs. security

 The reason we have secret services is because we plan and do some things that should be kept secret until such a time as their divulgement will cause no harm.  And that's why we have a system that labels some documents "top secret."

The president has authority to declassify top secret documents, and he did so recently when he released legal memos that authorized advanced interrogation techniques under certain, controlled circumstances.  The same documents (and others) also detail benefits obtained from these procedures. 

But the documents released to the public presented only interrogation techniques in great detail -- the results of the interrogations were redacted. 

Because of this selective reporting, Obama's approval of the release of the memos in this incomplete form must be viewed for what it obviously is -- a political gesture designed to insult the Bush administration and appease the appetites of the far left.     

Vice President Cheney formally requested that the full documents be released for public viewing, so that results can be fairly measured against techniques.  His request was denied.

By openly outlawing all advanced interrogation techniques, and by revealing from the most reliable source of all (the president) the details of these techniques, the president, in an amateurish grab for short-term popularity, made a tremendous gaff that has given comfort to the enemy and has done nothing to protect the U.S. or its troops.

The scorecard for this man in the fields of defense and diplomacy should not bring comfort to any American.  And his speech on Thursday, May 21, 2009, should add to the worry. 

America enjoys good speeches and appreciates a broad smile, but it expects hard-eyed decisions from a President as he negotiates the rapids of this very, very dangerous world, guided by one thing -- his presidential oath.

A useful formula is taking shape: If Obama's America becomes popular, America as a sovereign nation and a world leader will diminish, or, if America's unpopularity continues (because Obama dares to make decisions based on need and not on polls), America as a sovereign nation and as a world leader will flourish.

4 comments »

Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to go There? Conclusion

The first column under this title began: "Forget Democrat and Republican.  Think American."  This is the imperative of our times.  Faced with problems more varied and more dangerous than ever before, Americans must come together and, in a unified voice, demand that the U.S. Constitution, now a legal plaything of activist judges, be restored as the supreme law of the land, especially with respect to the sections that enumerate the limitations on the powers of the central government    

The above statement presumes that the great majority of Americans continue to believe that the law of the land that guided its people to freedom and that generated the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, is still their legal beacon of choice. 

But is that true?  Do Americans truly want to be as free as the Founders made them?  Or has freedom, with its accompanying responsibilities, become too burdensome a load for modern Americans to carry?

To answer that question, one must first look for guidance to the Constitution itself.  Its premise was: The smaller the central government, the freer the states and the people will be. 

With that in mind, the Founders agreed on the wording of Section 8, which enumerates the powers granted to the federal government:

1.      To borrow money.

2.      To regulate commerce, foreign and interstate.

3.      To establish uniform rules and laws governing naturalization and bankruptcies.

4.      To coin money and set standards for weights and measures.

5.      To establish punishments for counterfeiting.

6.      To establish post offices and post roads.

7.      To promote science and the useful arts by establishing copyright and patent protection laws.

8.      To establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

9.      To define and punish pirates.

10.  To declare war and define rules relative to captures.

11.  To raise and support armies.

12.  To raise and support a navy.

13.  To establish rules for the armed services.

14.  To call militias to support the implementation of law.

15.  To organize, arm and discipline a militia assigned to the service of the nation, but reserving to states the right to appoint officers and the authority to train the militia according to federal rules.

16.  To control and support all federal forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, etc.

17.  To make all laws necessary to execute the abovementioned duties and powers.

Such restrictions on federal power were satisfactory to some Founders, but not to all.  Many feared the centralized government would slip its bonds and encroach on state and individual rights.  So they insisted on, and got Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people." 

Does it surprise you to see how few things the federal government is empowered to do under the Constitution?  Compare what it has done since the days of the Great Depression with what it is allowed to do.  How did this happen?  How did America stray so far from its heritage in such a short period of time? 

No sentence has ever been written that a lawyer can't bend to his purposes.  And it is that talent (to distort the original meaning of words) that gave to President Roosevelt the legal basis for expanding the role of the federal government into areas of the private sector never imagined, or intended, by the Founders, or by the first thirty-one presidents of the United States. 

The empowering clause is found in the opening paragraph of Section 8 in the Constitution: "The Congress shall have the power to ... provide for ... the ... general welfare of the United States."  Also, in clause three of the same section it is provided that the federal government may "regulate commerce ... among the several states."

Roosevelt drove through that loophole in the Constitution, and began the grand march toward socialism.  Truman added to Roosevelt's legacy, and tried to do more (universal health care as an issue began with him).  Things leveled off under Eisenhower, then exploded under President Johnson who led the charge to the mixture of socialism and capitalism that exists today. 

No Republican president, including Reagan, could stop this suicidal trend because they never had the veto-proof congressional power to change anything. 

Also, about half of the public, according to their votes, like the federal benefits they get (or will get) more than they miss the freedom they've lost to get them. 

Traveling in tandem with this move toward socialism has been a liberal-dominated Supreme Court (until recently) that turned the culture of America upside down.  Without going into the details of what is familiar to most, it is sufficient to say that what was damned as wrong or indecent in the 1950s is right and popular today.  In other words, another victory for socialistic forces is in process, namely the establishment of religion as an irrelevancy in American life.  This is important because religion is intrinsically an enemy of socialism.

So what does all of this have to do with the issues discussed in this column over the past few weeks? 

The proposition herein advanced is this: There is nothing about the problems with war, the value of the dollar, energy and healthcare that explains the hateful partisanship that exists in Washington.  These, to be sure, are difficult problems, but solvable ones when approached by men of good will.

 And there's the rub.  They are not being approached by men of good will.  This fight isn't over issues at all.  It's about power.  It's the same argument that's been going on since President Johnson put Roosevelt's ideas on steroids. 

Socialism in its early years is a political system that controls the distribution of wealth.  Private property rights are diminished; government takes from those who have and distributes it according to some utopian plan dreamed up by bureaucrats. 

In its mature form, socialism is a system of government that also controls the means of production. 

Democracy dies as socialism advances.  Eventually, it is gone and inevitably a supreme ruler takes charge.  Chavez in Nicaragua is a recent example of this.  He is growing larger; everything else is smaller.

Obama is gradually moving the federal government into control positions in private industry.  The management of banks, insurance companies, brokerages and automobile companies is now partly in the hands of Washington.

The circle is gradually closing: Redistribution of income; increased control of the private sector; marginalization of religion.   

So it all shakes down to this.  We don't have the problems we seem to have; we have the problem that can't be seen -- the problem that poisons all other problems. 

We have people on a mission to deal the final blow to our constitutional form of government who are being opposed by a still powerful group of constitutionalists. 

You should take sides; there is still time to preserve what made us great. 

What can we do?  Stop insulting each other; be heard; contact senators and congressmen; vote; join groups.  Unity on any specific problem will not evolve until this big one is tamed. 

I for one don't want to go where we're headed.

3 comments »

Where Are We Headed? Who Wants To Go There? Part IV

In the first three columns under this title, war, the value of the dollar and energy were discussed.  Those interested, can read them when time permits.  The focus in this column will be healthcare.

President Barack Obama prefers a system of nationalized healthcare over the mostly private system that is in place (Medicare and Medicaid are already a step in the direction of a government controlled system).

He isn't the first to have this ambition -- President Truman in the late 1940s; President Johnson in the 1960s and the Clintons in the early 1990s.

This brief background immediately rebuts the charge by some that the president is a radical, hatching a brand new idea.  Not so.  He may or may not be a radical.  But in this case, the charge is invalid.  Every liberal president since Roosevelt has tried to move the United States into socialism. 

Now it's Obama's turn, and he may have -- thanks to your enlightened voting -- the veto-proof Congress that is a prerequisite to getting the job done. 

Be sure of one thing: When the proposal emerges from congressional committees it will not appear to be an outright grab of the healthcare system by the federal government.  That was tried by the Clintons, and it failed. 

Obama is too clever to repeat that mistake.  His proposal will appear to establish a flat playing field upon which various plans can fairly compete, with Mickey Mouse (the private plans) as one of the competitors, and Jumbo the Elephant (the federal government's plan) as the other -- and with Jumbo writing the rules of engagement. 

Private plans will quit or go broke in such a situation, and nationalized healthcare -- the ultimate goal -- will be the result. 

Is it where you want to go?  If you think it is, do you really know what you're agreeing to?

The question will be approached from two angles:

• What is the justification for changing the current system?
• Will Americans be better off under the proposed system?

Justification

 It is said that compared to other countries, the U.S. system is too expensive.  The claim is made that cost will be lower under a government plan.

First of all, cost comparisons with other countries are invalid.  Using Canada as an example, U.S. coverage is far more extensive in terms of services offered and performed. Also, they and other countries control costs by rationing services. 

That is not to say that costs in the U.S. are not too high.  But to correct this does not require junking the system that, more than any other, constantly creates new cures and techniques for deadly diseases.  Corrections can be made within the system. 

Drug prices are a favorite target of bureaucrats.  If federal control of healthcare takes place, there will be price controls established for drugs, and a list of covered drugs (that will not include all approved drugs).  Such is the case in all socialistic systems. 

As this takes hold, drug companies will reduce research spending; the pace of new or improved care will decrease until, finally, the industry will be as unimaginative as its European counterparts.  Everyone, especially third-world nations, will suffer for this. 

If the government and the people are willing to destroy the highly productive U.S. drug industry, it doesn't have to junk the total private healthcare system to do it.  Just slap price controls and availability controls on and watch the industry wither.  The payback will be lower costs for less care, and less hope for future cures.  Is that a good deal?

Updated and centralized computer controls are also cited as being a road that would lead to sizable savings.  It's an idea worth pursuing.  But why junk the current system to do it?  Make the changes within it.   

Lead!  Do not kidnap.

The second justification -- and the one most often advanced -- for dumping the private system of providing healthcare for a government system is the fact that 47,000 Americans are not insured.  This is a weak leg upon which to build the case for a system of national healthcare. 

According to the Census Bureau (2006), about ten million uninsureds are not citizens; about eighteen million come from households with annual income above $50,000; another seventeen million are young people in good health who choose not to buy insurance.  Only thirty percent of the non-elderly uninsured is in that state for more than a year -- about half regained insurance within four months. 

In short, the 47,000 uninsured Americans are not a solid block of disenfranchised people.  On the contrary, it is a dynamic group within which faces constantly change as economic fortunes fluctuate. 

It is time to stop the political posturing and to separate the uninsured into sensible problem-solving groups, for example: children and aged or disabled; cop outs, and the temporarily unemployed.  And put someone to work on the problem of taking care of each group in a way that doesn't ruin the existing system.    

It is clear that the total number of uninsured is not large enough to justify the destruction of a system that is the envy of the world.  Its weaknesses through which unfortunates drop can be fixed in a setting that is far less political and far more commonsensical.

The conclusion here is this: Flaws in the current systems have been widely broadcasted and they should be fixed.  But there is nothing about their size or complexity that points to a government program as being the only solution -- or even a good solution.         

Will Americans be better off under a government system?

 Facts concerning services rendered under socialized medicine are readily available to anyone with a library card or a computer, and they speak for themselves.  Considering the stakes, anyone who supports nationalized healthcare, no matter how cleverly presented, without exercising one or both of these tools will become an accomplice in the destruction of a great and unique American institution -- its healthcare system.

• British law says that all patients admitted must be treated within four hours.  Available facilities and doctors make compliance impossible. To comply with law, patients wait in ambulances until it's safe to admit them. 
• Waiting time for major surgery is frightening -- for example, one to two years for hip replacement. 
• Children come to the United States for certain types of treatments that are uncovered in Britain's system.
• Dentists, like doctors, operate under quotas.  Many stop working when quotas are reached; dentist shortage is severe.  Many patients go to other countries for care.
• One-third of Britain's doctors believe elderly people should not qualify for free treatment; half believe smokers should be denied bypass surgery; twenty-five percent say obese people should not qualify for certain types of surgery.
• In Canada, an eighteen week wait for surgery is common.  The U.S. performs twice as many surgeries per year than Canada (after adjusting for population).
• Canadians wait three months for an MRI; the U.S. has four times more MRI units -- waiting time is minimal.
• Canadians wait two months for a CT scan; the U.S. has three times more units -- waiting time is minimal.
• Doctors' fees are controlled in Canada.  To compensate they increase caseload and spend less time per patient.  About eighty-five percent of doctors locate in cities; rural doctors are rare.  Doctor population is diminishing.
• Many medical services and drugs are not covered by the Canadian system; waiting lists to get into hospitals are long -- almost half are in pain; some wait six to eight months; many hospitals have old equipment and are limited to old technologies; many patients come to the U.S. for treatment -- about one-third have traveled to the U.S. for at least one treatment.
• The Canadian Medical Association says "shortages have resulted in an unconscionable delay in the diagnosis and treatment of such things as cancer, heart disease and bone and joint conditions."

            Healthcare systems are either life driven or cost driven.  U.S. systems -- so far -- have been, with some exceptions, life driven.         

Note: Assisted suicide is legal in Washington and Oregon.

            It is clear that cost driven socialistic systems eventually devalue life and invite the growth of such things as euthanasia and assisted suicide.

            Healthcare should have nothing to do with politics.  But the problem here and elsewhere is poisoned with it.  This is regrettable. 

            Except for the appetite for centralized power, there is no objective evidence to suggest that nationalized insurance driven by the desire to protect life would be cheaper than the present system.  To adopt it, in effect, expresses a willingness to devalue life. 

            There is ample evidence to demonstrate that if adopted, healthcare quality would plummet.    

            This issue will be voted on in a matter of weeks in Congress.  Only American voters who look beyond party loyalty can stop the current steamroller that is marching the nation into the crumbling mold of the European Union.

            Is this where you want to go?

3 comments »

Where Are We Headed? Who Wants to Go There? Part III

WHERE ARE WE HEADED? WHO WANTS TO GO THERE? PART III

Under the above title, three major problems of the day were appraised. The subjectively developed scorecard is as follows:

o War - We are a divided nation; divided we will fall.
o Protection of the value of the dollar - The combination of historical spending momentum, plus current spending will drive debt into the stratosphere. Inflation is on the horizon; the American credit rating and the value of the dollar are at risk.

o Energy - Administration objectives are based upon a controversial theory of global warming and its causes. No country should turn its economy upside down based upon such incomplete evidence. And that's what the president wants to do. This is scary foolishness.

In this column Economic Growth will be examined. During the presidential campaign it pushed war aside and became the central issue, a switch in emphasis that erased whatever chances John McCain had for winning the election.

It is commonly said that President Obama walked into a recession. That is true. And it is said that it's the worst recession since the Great Depression. That is not true. But it has the capacity to be so if incorrect policies are put in place.

There have been in modern history three critical points when the financial stability of the United States was in great peril: The Great Depression period, under Roosevelt; 1980, under Reagan; 2008 (potentially), under Obama.

Rooseveltians give the great war-leader credit for ending the Great Depression, pointing with pride to multiple federal programs he created. Not true. As late as 1940, the unemployment rate was about 15 percent. The embarrassing truth is: Hitler and Japan yanked the U.S. economy out of it doldrums.

Their actions pulled the U.S. into the war, energized the war industry, hired every warm body on the street and dropped the unemployment rate to 1.2 percent.

The lesson: Don't do what Roosevelt did -- his spending and his tampering with the private sector prolonged the depression. The war bailed him (and us) out.

Reagan in 1980 had a different problem from Roosevelt's -- one could argue a worse one. In addition to the slow economy and the shaky banks, the federal budget had been out of control for two decades; a Cold War full of nuclear tensions continued, which directly threatened the physical existence of the nation, and an inherited mound of debt made it difficult for the president to maneuver.

Reagan's misery index (the sum of the interest, inflation and unemployment rates) was three-times higher than Obama's; his unemployment rate alone was 50 percent higher.

This isn't the time or place to get into the specifics of Reagan's approach to the problem. It is sufficient to say he did not spend as Roosevelt did, nor did he over-regulate or tax the job makers. Instead, he specifically targeted those most likely to invest and create jobs; he provided incentives that got them moving.

There was no interference in the private sector; bankruptcies were regarded as part of the necessary debris that attaches to the free market, which overall enriches its population as never before.

It was slow going. Reagan was hammered by the elite media. But once the worm turned, record years of growth followed that, except for a short dip during the administration of George H.W. Bush, lasted until 2000.

Reagan's critics point to the increase in public debt during his administration from $712 billion to $2052 billion, an increase of $1340 billion -- no question about it, a serious piece of change. What they conveniently fail to note, however, is:

o The nation was involved in an expensive Cold War, for which deficits have historically been used. Deficit spending, $206 billion.
o The budget was burdened by debt accumulated since the 1960s (thank you, LBJ). Deficit spending, $215 billion.
o Great Society programs continued full blast throughout the Cold War. Deficit spending, $866 billion.
o The remaining deficit spending was indirectly related to the Cold War (foreign aid, etc). Deficit spending, $53 billion.
o As a result of Reagan's war policies, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War (dating back to President Truman) ended. This made it possible for future presidents to discreetly trim military costs and reduce deficits.
Source: The National Debt of the United States, 1941-2008, Robert E. Kelly, 2008, McFarland, N. Carolina

Obama too has a different problem, in some respects more difficult (banking) and in others, not so.

He has no Cold War to concern him that at any moment could explode into ruination. But he does have a relatively small shooting war going on in the Middle East, which he has yet to acknowledge with the steadfastness of his predecessor.

For Obama the problem is as much internal as external, if not more so. Government interference in the housing sector of the economy is the root cause of the foreclosures that weakened banks, tightened credit and slowed the economy.

He has not formally recognized this or taken steps to prevent reoccurrence. Instead, he has hammered the private sector.

Obama ignores the Reagan model and has apparently bought into the false myth that Roosevelt's spending orgy fixed the Great Depression. Spending he has proposed and fundamental changes in the economy that he regards as fundamental (energy, health care) would make FDR beam with pleasure.

Except for badly-needed support to some banks, Obama has not targeted incentives at investors (reduce/eliminate capital gains taxes) or job creators (small business is the source of most new jobs). As a result, they will not perform to capability. Instead he has copied the spending model of Roosevelt. It is certain he will increase debt but ....

In the meantime, government causes of debt are untouched. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others, intimately involved in causative activities, are now in charge of the fix. Only in Washington could such a thing happen.

And Obama is going even farther astray from the Reagan model. Taxpayer money is being invested in banks and in automobile companies. State/city/town deficits are being subsidized by federal money.

And on it goes.

Sooner or later the economy will turn by itself. But what will it look like? Will we still be free? This is your future. Is it where you want to go?

18 comments »