what if?

Red Meat

This column is partisan and political.  Yet, can supporters of this administration tell me why our current administration is justified in ignoring all these assaults on free speech around the globe?

That Was Then, Case #2,197

Remember when the Bush administration paid Armstrong Williams to promote "No Child Left Behind" and didn't disclose that this opinion writer was getting paid?

The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

The contract, detailed in documents obtained by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request, also shows that the Education Department, through the Ketchum public relations firm, arranged with Williams to use contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, "to encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. He persuaded radio and TV personality Steve Harvey to invite Paige onto his show twice. Harvey's manager, Rushion McDonald, confirmed the appearances.

Williams said he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

"I respect Mr. Williams' statement that this is something he believes in," said Bob Steele, a media ethics expert at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "But I would suggest that his commitment to that belief is best exercised through his excellent professional work rather than through contractual obligations with outsiders who are, quite clearly, trying to influence content."

The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

At the time, I remember thinking that it surely should have been disclosed that Williams was being paid to perform this function - if it was kosher at all for him to do this.

Today, however, I cannot help but wonder.  Will the MSM and Democrats get upset that the National Endowment for the Arts was being instructed and hired to promote President Obama's agenda?

Former actor and present White House associate director of public engagement Kalpen Modi was directly involved in planning the controversial conference call hosted by a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) flack to encourage tax-supported artists to create propaganda for President Obama, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The emails reveal that Modi worked with now-former NEA national communications director Yosif Sargant in planning the August 10 conference call that was first revealed by Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood.com web site. Participants in the conference call were encouraged to use their talents to generate public support for the Obama agenda in Congress.

Surely if the Democrats were upset about one opinion pundit being paid to tout a Bush administration program, they'll be up in arms about this larger scheme.

Right?

Lack of Class

Why is our current ruling party slipping in polls?  Is it particular legislation?  Governing philosophy?

Perhaps Michael Gerson says it best:  a bottom line, a failure to set a classy example and lead.

The Obama administration has gone after both Rush Limbaugh and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- showing an inability to distinguish between the burning of heretics and the burning of bridges. It has courted insurance companies, then publicly demonized them for showing independence. Obama has tended to define all opposition, particularly on health care, as resulting from fear, cowardice and selfishness -- instead of admitting genuine disagreement. At a recent fundraiser, he mocked Republicans as robots who "do what they're told." He has engaged in consistent, classless, self-excusing criticism of his predecessor. Other presidents have been known for a war on totalitarianism or a war on terror. Obama is known for a war on Fox News.

Part of the Solution?

Or part of the problem?

Insurance is not part of the solution; it’s part of the problem. Many people—and especially poor people— get too little health care in this country. That’s largely because many other people—and especially rich people—are overinsured. People with insurance demand more health care, which drives up prices. More insurance coverage will make this problem worse, not better.

Steve Landsburg's new blog with some refreshingly clear statements about health care and the sorts of reform that will work - and not.

Stormy Weather

Totally non-political and utterly fascinating.  Budgie storms in Queensland.  Enjoy - Sunny the Budgie sure would!  Thanks to niece Jenny for the link.

Last One Out, Turn Out the Lights

Ooops; I forgot.  We're not even going to be allowed decent lighting much longer....

Thomas Sowell reflects upon the state of the state.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Ivy League Censoring

What parents spend to send their kids to Ivy League schools boggles my imagination.  But - they must think it's worth it, right?  Pony up a fortune, yet in the end, your child has received a broad and liberal education about the world.

Wrong.

The university asked some 20 scholars, counterterrorism officials and national security experts to asses the risk of more violence if copies of the cartoons were included in the book.“It was fairly overwhelming that the people who knew the most about this kind of situation said ‘Don’t do it,’ that this was likely to provoke violence,” Yale Press director John Donatich said. . . .

The university told Yale Press to eliminate the cartoons from the book, along with all other images of Muhammad. And Klausen was told she’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement if she wanted to read the experts’ comments. She declined to do so. But she says she was even more dismayed to learn that the panel had not read her book.

“My first reaction was that it was stunningly similar to what happened during the conflict itself,” said Klausen. “I disagreed with the experts’ advice. I felt that had the experts read my book, they would not have given the advice they produced.”

So we are clear: A prominent University censored content from a book based on the opinions of experts who had not read the book in question.

When purportedly the finest nations in our country are censoring material that the censors have not even read - then where do you go?  If you consider the old saw, "you get what you pay for" - exactly what are students and their parents getting - not to mention the rest of us?

Mandates Versus Free Enterprise

Arthur Brooks has a column today in the Wall Street Journal about the issue of the day:  health care.  Mr. Brooks wonders, however, is all the discussion really over health care reform - or something larger?

We will continue to hear both sides of the health-care debate argue about particulars of insurance markets, the deficit impacts of reform, and the minutiae of budgetary assumptions. These arguments, while important, do not address the deeper issues involved.

The health-care debate is part of a moral struggle currently being played out over the free enterprise system. It will be replayed in every major policy debate in the coming months, from financial regulatory reform to a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. The choices will ultimately always come down to competing visions of America's future. Will we strengthen freedom, individual opportunity and enterprise? Or will we expand the role of the state and its power?

As I have said repeatedly to my liberal friends, virtually everyone that I know agrees we need reform about how health care management and insurance functions in our nation.  Where we disagree is how to do it.

I'm with Mr. Brooks.  Open up health care markets so they are really free and people do have choices - and then let individuals decide what is best for their own lives.  Unlike my liberal friends, I really do think that the American people are up to the task.

Eviscerating the Constitution

Liberals howled when they believed that George W. Bush was slicing and dicing the Constitution.

Where are the liberal protests now?

Bush created five new czar positions in five years.  Obama created 17 new czar positions in 8 months, only one of which needed Senate confirmation and has Congressional oversight.  These are essentially end runs around Congressional oversight.  The Obama administration denied this earlier this year, but their response to both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill leaves little doubt on the matter.   Obama wants to create and implement policy in secret, and doesn’t want his czars having to testify before Congress on what they do.

Is this “transparency”?  No, but it is a transparent power grab, and Congress has only belatedly noticed it.  In fact, as the Washington Times reports this morning, White House counsel Greg Craig denied this — but spent half of his time rebutting Glenn Beck rather than explaining why Congress should not have oversight over administration officials who set and implement policy.

The three branches of our government were created for a reason.  If the executive is allowed to strangle the others . . . Well.  I'll let you fill in the blanks.

How To Encourage Sloth

From the time I was quite young, this was drummed into my head:  "The harder you work, the greater your odds of success."  Witnessing this in my life was common.  I saw my parents and their peers work full time and attend law school at night.  Friends worked 90 hour weeks to build businesses - and income.

Working one's tail off usually meant that one could better oneself.  A superior job could be gained - with a superior paycheck.  Or, a business proprietor saw greater sales - and income.

Yet, what if - perversely - all that extra work and effort meant that you would actually find yourself almost in the same spot you were without all that diligence - if indeed you were better off at all?  Would you still labor so mightily?  Or - might you just kick off, and figure, "Why should I work so hard, if The Man takes virtually all of it away when I do?"

Bingo.  Welcome to the 21st century.  Today, instead of rewarding effort and sweat and striving, our government essentially tells us what morons we were to work so hard.

Eighteen months after being laid off, Judith Lederman, a 50-year-old divorcee who lives in Scarsdale, N.Y., is ready to consider jobs paying half the $120,000 she earned as a publicity manager at Lord & Taylor. That's mostly because she's desperate, but it also makes sense when you consider how this country punishes work effort. While the first $60,000 of her income would be lightly taxed, the next $60,000 would be hit with what is in effect a 79% tax rate. Given a choice between a part-time or easy job paying $60,000 and a demanding, stress-ridden job paying $120,000, Lederman would be wise to take the former. In the tougher job she would be contributing twice as much to the economy. But she wouldn't be doing herself much good. It would make more sense to take it easy and spend more time with her high school senior daughter, Casey.

For decades there has been debate about how to help the poor without discouraging work, saving or marriage. Yet with almost no notice just such disincentives have crept up the income ladder, observes economist C. Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official and expert on the taxation of families. At first blush it would be hard to argue with anything that might help Lederman get back on her feet. Mortgage relief? The voters clamored for it. Scholarships for less-prosperous students? Everyone wants poor kids to get the same chances in life as rich ones. Add up all these good intentions, though, and you get some perverse incentives.

Work isn't the only middle-class virtue that is getting punished. The system penalizes savings, too--not just through taxes, but also through programs that reward debtors, the profligate and college families that show up at the financial aid office with empty pockets. Yet another series of tax and benefit rules penalizes marriage.

Do I believe in offering opportunities to those who come from harsh backgrounds, so they can better themselves?  Yes.  Yet, we must devise a system that provides incentives to the type of behavior we deem admirable - not to that which has an adverse effect on society.

"This is a big social experiment. We really don't know what the long-term effect of all these incentives is going to be," Steuerle says.

I know what it's going to be....

"Don't think the American public is stupid," says Cheryl Morse, a tax practitioner in eastern Massachusetts with both middle- income and affluent clients. "People call me and say, 'What's the most I can earn before I lose the earned income tax credit?' [They] may not understand marginal rates, but they're shocked when they lose the college or child credits. You hear all the time, 'The harder I work, the more they take away from me.'"

People are not stupid.  Many want to improve their lives - and they're willing to work hard and sacrifice to achieve it.  Still - if they find that their situations, perversely, are not improved by these sorts of activities, then we'll see more and more taking a "why bother?" attitude.

What kind of society do you prefer?

Heroes

 An amazing story of heroism. 

Spc. Channing Moss should be dead by all accounts. And those who saved his life did so knowing they might have died with him.

He was impaled through the abdomen with a rocket-propelled grenade, and an aluminum rod with one tail fin protruded from the left side of his torso.

His fellow soldiers worried: Could he blow up and take them with him? For all anyone knew, the answer was yes.

Still, over the course of the next couple of hours, his buddies, a helicopter crew and a medical team would risk their own lives to save his.

Thanks to my friend Roxy for the pointer.

Why Do They Rob Medicare?

It's where the money is.

Jimmy Rodgers of San Bernadino tells CNN he went three times-a-week to a clinic, receiving $100-a-visit, but little medical care.

"This is just like carte blanche," said Rodgers, holding his red, white and blue Medicare card. "Matter of fact, better than carte blanche. Carte blanche has limitations on it."

The clinics, Rogers concedes, were clearly fronts for collecting beneficiary data. "They, were no doctors. They were just somebody who had their hand out," said Rodgers, who later cooperated with federal investigators. "And they just ripping the system off and using me as a means to rip the system off."

Once criminals have doctor and patient IDs they begin filing false claims. The Khacheryan gang told Medicare that health services were being provided on the 10th floor of a decrepit industrial building at 754 South Los Angeles Street. But there is no doctor's office there; only a mail drop where the Khacheryan group collected checks from Uncle Sam for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Inspector General's office of the Department of Health and Human Services estimates it is on track to recover about $4-billion dollars this year from breaking up health care fraud schemes perpetrated by all types of criminals, from organized rings to corrupt doctors.

That amount, though, is only about 5% of annual health care fraud in the United States, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. Because government health programs operate on the honor system, law enforcement officials say it's easy for organized crime rings and average criminals to cash in at the taxpayer's expense.

If the federal government takes over health care for all - the amount of fraud that might be perpetrated is mindboggling.

Do As I Say

Not as I do!

The Michael Moore of the New York Times: Paul Krugman.

In a world full of paradoxes, Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has become rich decrying what he deems "income inequality." Only in America could an individual denounce the wealth gap while becoming the very person he denounces.

In that sense, it may be that polar opposites Karl Marx and Joseph Schumpeter were right: capitalism is seemingly its own worst enemy. In rich societies, commentators can become wealthy while trashing wealth creation.

If these people hate wealth accumulation so much - then why don't they seek out the simple solution:  give away most of what they earn?

I leave it to you, dear reader, to answer that question.

"All Men Are Created Equal"

This man fought for the principle that we are all created equal. 

Raining Leaves

Today it rained, and rained - and then rained a bit more.  Not pleasant if you were anticipating a vigorous walk outdoors.  But, beautiful and misty in its own way.

A couple of days ago, we'd cleared all the leaves from the front of the house.  After today's weather,  you'd never guess that any leaves had been removed.  As if the heavens rained leaves all day long ....

Free Press

My visit last year to the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg was most educational.  At this center for journalism, I learned much about "new journalism," and met a wide variety of people who exposed me to much that I would never see in my (so-called) "normal" life. 

Many of these mostly quite younger folks are strong proponents of non-profits subsidizing newspapers - or of having the government keep journalism going.  My own opinion?  Extremely dangerous.

In this column by Seth Lipsky, a fellow who struggled to keep small publications surviving, he tries to explain why.

What would happen today if some modern-day version of Jay Near's "Saturday Press," an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, racist newspaper issued during the 1920s, were to look for innovative funding by one of these state councils today? Minnesota tried back then to suppress Near's paper as a nuisance. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Near v. Minnesota (1931), protected his freedom from prior restraint. It's one thing for the Supreme Court to say a Jay Near can't be stopped in advance from publishing on his own dime. It would be another to use state power to force the rest of us to pay for it whether we want to or not.

Even if one could get around this sort of thing, I've come to the view that the real protection of press freedom is in the idea of private property. Press freedom in Soviet Russia was lost precisely on this issue when, as American journalist John Reed told the story in his famous book, "Ten Days that Shook the World," a proposal was put on the table to restore the press freedom that had been suspended on the first day of the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin shouted it down with a diatribe about how that would mean restoring to capitalists privately owned printing equipment, paper supplies and ink.

If you're reporting the news, and the government is subsidizing you, and you're the government's friend, all is well.  But - what if you are not?

What then?

Something to ponder......

 

Kudos to the New York Times

A most important column about the Middle East - and a perspective that will not please many of the Times' readers.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Catastrophic Coverage

When you get home insurance, you are covered if your home burns down, or if a massive storm rips away your roof.  If you have an auto and auto insurance, your coverage includes major accidents or a stolen vehicle.  Need new carpet?  Or a drain is plugged?  Have to replace your windshield wipers, or put gas in the tank?  You reach into your pocket and pay for it.  Just imagine the paperwork and bureaucracy necessary if you had to deal with your insurance company for all those routine, normal tasks involved with owning a home or a vehicle.

Yet, that is exactly what we have done with our health care.  Instead of paying for routine and expected items as we do for hundreds of other items in our life, we must go through the cumbersome system of an insurance company.  As a result, we have strayed far from a system where people manage their own lives and their own needs and their own health - and their own costs.  Instead of having health insurance for unexpected, big events - we are faced with a system that makes no sense.

There is a better way.  Let's return to health insurance really being "insurance."  Here's how to do it.

If we came to a conclusion that everyone should be required to pay, say, $100 a month toward his own medical care starting at age 18 and our catastrophic policy should cover anything over this $100 a month plus compound interest, the results are startling.

Forty-seven years of compounding $100 a month at, say, 8 percent would give our sick 64-year-old a medical savings account of $621,237.73 to pay his own bill. This not only would keep the cost of catastrophic coverage way down, it would more fairly hold people responsible for reasonable contributions to the cost of their own health care.

The miracle of compounding will far better serve us than our current system.  Whether you're on the right or the left, this has to make more sense than the current plans being discussed in Congress.

A Walk in the Woods

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. 

Frank Lloyd Wright

 

Kudos, Mr. President

No, this is not facetious. 

A nice performance by the president in Louisiana, and my thanks to Dan Blatt for the link.

Good points by the president that we must remember, despite differences, most of us really are working toward similar goals. No matter what our political philosophy, why should try to remember this.