The Health Care Bill - the Law that Keeps on Being Written

On November 22, 2010, and we once again find out what happens when we can't know what is in a bill until we pass a bill. This is the date that the Obama Administration announced that it knows better than an entire industry, and placed a requirement on health insurance companies that they spend 80-85% of health insurance premiums on medical related expenses. While this is not technically a limit on profits, it is at least a close cousin.

It sounds good, doesn't it? Even though most of us are insulated from the full price of our health insurance premiums, because they are paid by our employers, we all know that they are expensive - too expensive, even. So the idea that 80% of our premiums going toward medical expenses sounds like we are going to end up getting more bang for our buck. On the face of it, it appears that, if a health insurer is spending more than 20% on costs/profits, that they will have to reduce them in order to comply with the law. Although this not necessarily the case, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that insurers will comply with the law by reducing their non-medical expenses.

Off the top of my head, non-medical expenses include, but are not limited to, administrative costs (people's salaries), infrastructure (computers, office equipment, offices, etc.), fraud investigations, and profits (can't forget those). So, which of these are going to get cut? Profits are the easy answer, but profits for health insurance companies are currently around 3.5%. There isn't much more to cut, there. So, what else is going to get cut? People's salaries? Or should we just reduce the number of people employed in the insurance industry? Maybe we don't need those new-fangled computers (even though they probably make the industry much more cost efficient). Fraud investigations? That wouldn't cause incidents of fraud to rise, would it? When you look at the actual places that cuts would be made, it becomes evident that there might not be all that much fat to cut.

The other way that companies could come into compliance... the easy way for them to comply with this new rule, is to increase the other side of the equation - the amount spend on medical expenses. Rising medical expenses would result in rising premiums, and if the non-medical expenses remained constant, they would become a smaller percentage of premiums. This is certainly not the intent of the new regulation, but it is a likely result of it.

I don't normally make predictions, but if and when this latter scenario plays out, the next move will not be the repeal of this rule, it will be the adoption of even more regulations. If medical expenses increase as a result of an increase in the cost of specific tests and procedures, price controls will be instituted to prohibit their inflation. If insurers start authorizing additional tests in order to cause their medical expenses to rise, regulations will be instituted to limit what tests can be administered for what conditions.

But here is the real travesty. No one voted on this regulation. Not one Congressman. Not one Senator. Every single person that voted for the health care bill in March can honestly say that this is not what they voted for. But they did vote for it. They voted for it because they voted for a bill that said things like "The Secretary shall make such rules..." over and over throughout the legislation. Our legislature, once again, has abrogated their responsibility of creating the law, and handed it over to the executive branch. This is why Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we couldn't know what is in the law until they passed the law - because the law wasn't written, even then. In my last post, one of my suggestions to the new Republican majority was to take back the power that they have given over to the executive branch. The more I think about it, the more important I think this is. Congress should pass a law requiring that all executive-enacted regulation must be ratified by the Congress, either within a certain period of time, or, better yet, before it goes into effect. On November 22, 2010, we learned of another piece of the health care bill. It won't be the last, because, eight months after the bill was passed and signed into law, the health care bill continues to be written.

An Open Letter to John Boehner

Dear Mr. Boehner,

First of all, congratulations on your historic victory in the just concluded midterm election. I remember 1994, staying up to watch the election returns come in as seat after seat fell to Republicans, and they were able to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years. This was the first election since then that has had me so enthused, and I look forward to your inauguration as the new Speaker of the House. As hard as it is to imagine, the election is the easy part. Governing is the hard part. You've won. Now what? You seem to have made a good start, you struck the right tone in your speech on election night. You seem to realize that this was not a victory for Republicans as much as it was a defeat of Democrats. But now it is time to move forward, and with that in mind, I would like to offer you a little advice.

1. Keep things simple. Write legislation that is easy to understand. Whenever possible, have each piece of legislation should serve a single purpose. A bill should have a preamble, telling what it is supposed to do in plain, clear language. It should then have bullet points to explain how it is going to do that. Only then should the legal-eze appear, and even then, if it starts to near 100 pages, red flags should go up that this is getting much too complicated.

This is much of the problem with grandiose legislative initiatives like the Health Care Bill. By the time it was written, it was over 2,000 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that no one could understand. Republicans have their own ideas for health care reform. Instead of rolling these up into one big health care bill, have a series of bills created. For example: Republicans would like to allow people to buy health insurance form any company, regardless of the state that the policy is underwritten in. Great. Write it up. How long would it take to write a bill that just did that? A second Health Care reform Republicans have proposed is that people should be able to buy their own health insurance policy, and get the same tax breaks that corporations get. There is a second bill, write it up, vote on it, send it on to the Senate. Make the Senate and the President go on the record on these "common sense" reforms, that have been written in such a way that the American people understand precisely what it is that is being voted on.

2. Pass a new rule that, in every two-year session of Congress, every member of Congress has the opportunity to bring one piece of legislation to the floor for a vote. It is my belief that this would go a long way to show that Republicans are interested in working with Democrats. Nancy Pelosi came off as authoritative. Democrats, with their large majorities, were unwilling to even listen to Republican ideas, let alone allow them to be voted on. Show that you are a bigger person, and that the Republicans are the party of grown-ups. Every member can bring one piece of legislation out of committee, without committee approval. It will receive an up or down vote, and the American people will know where both sides stand. Of course, all legislation must pass whatever test is placed it by the first suggestion.

3. Target the deficit. Come up with a number that you want to reduce the deficit by, and try to meet it. Better yet, give a number to the President and let him know that any budget that he proposes that exceeds that number will be considered dead on arrival. This would tell the American people that you are serious about tackling the debt.

4. Quit giving away your authority by creating agencies that have the power to write regulations with the force of law. It is your job to make law. Do it. This was another problem with the Health Care Bill. The legislation didn't create rules as much as it created agencies that had the power to write them. And while you are at it, take back some of the authority that you have given to agencies such as the EPA. How about this. Any new regulation put in place by the EPA is only valid for 60 days, unless both houses of Congress vote on the regulation, and the President signs it into law - just like any other law. This needs to be implemented soon, or the EPA may end up instituting cap and trade without anyone every casting a vote on it.

5. For every new law, and new regulation, that you pass, you will repeal one. Better yet, be bold, and go for a two-fer. Repeal 2 laws for every new one that you pass. Most Americans have come to realize that there are too many regulations placed on them. The problem is, every time a new bill is signed into law, the burden becomes heavier. Laws don't often go away, just like spending programs don't. Make an effort to reduce this burden on the American people.

6. Find a way to show Americans that you are just as opposed to Big Business as you are Big Government. Power corrupts, and absolute power... Well, we all know that. The bigger anything is, the more corrupt it becomes, and this is true just as much for Big Business as it is for Big Government. It is a common misconception to think that Big Business is opposed to the regulatory burden placed on it by Big Government. The fact of the matter is, in many instances , they welcome it, because they can afford to accommodate the regulations, passing the costs on to consumers. Where they benefit is from the reduction of competition from small business. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a good piece of legislation, however, you can't argue that it is much easier for McDonald's to be able to comply with its requirements than it is for Ma's Diner.

It has been said, be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it. Well, Mr. Boehner, you have long wished to be Speaker of the House... to have at least one hand on the reigns of government. You have it now, but only with power that has been loaned to you from the American people. Use it wisely, or you may find that this blessing can quickly turn into a curse. I wish you luck, you may need it.

Sincerely,

Brent W. Tuominen

Sola, sola, sola, sola, sola

Today is Reformation Sunday. The day that we remember Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the church at Wittenburg. One of the things that came out of the reformation is concept of the "five solas", sola scriptura (scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christo (Christ alone) and sola gloria dei (to the glory of God alone). Five things that stand alone assure us of salvation. But at what point do five things standing alone become five things standing together? Perhaps the answer is that they do not ever stand together because they are all one and the same thing. Scripture alone is faith alone. Faith alone is grace alone. Grace alone is Christ alone. Christ alone is God's glory alone. These five things, which stand alone, stand alone because they are all different descriptions of the same thing.

A Scout is... Trustworthy

"A scout is trustworthy. A scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him." This is taken directly from the Boy Scout Handbook. I actually like the original version, from Robert Baden-Powell better. "A scout's honour is to be trusted. If a scout says 'On my honour it is so,' that means it is so, just as if he had taken a most solemn oath. Similarly, if a scout officer says to a scout, 'I trust you on your honor to do this,' the scout is bound to carry out the order to the very best of his ability, and to let nothing interfere with his doing so. If a scout were to break his honour by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly when trusted to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge and never be allowed to wear it again."

What I really like about that original version is the way that it links trustworthiness with honor. Honor is a concept that we really don't think about anymore, but that doesn't make it any less important. As I see it, your honor is tied up with who you are. You could look at it as the image that you portray to the world, but I like to think of it as your image in the eyes of God. Another way of looking at it is the way people feel about you in a pinch, and this is where we get back to the concept of trustworthiness. In order for people to be able to count on you in a pinch, they have to be able to trust you. Ultimately, that comes down to your character.

Young people today seem awfully concerned about being "disrespected." The problem with this is that they think that respect is one of their inalienable rights. But that is not the case. Respect is the result of honor. Honor comes from trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is earned. This is a key component of scouting, and it starts from an early age. The Cub Scout motto, "Do your best," is chock full of trustworthiness. In order to be trustworthy, people need to know that they can count on you to give it your all at all times. Do you best - no one can ever expect any more than that. Scouts are taught, from an early age, that if they focus on being trustworthy and doing their absolute best at all times, they will, ultimately, earn respect.

I want to briefly go back to the religious element of trustworthiness and honor. In the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, the signatories pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. These guys really got the concept of honor. Their lives and their fortunes were pretty important, but the only thing that they considered to be sacred was their honor. Your trustworthiness, your honor, your character is what defines you. There are few institutions left in this country that teaches young men the concept of honor as being a compact between you and everyone in society (not just your teammates) and between you and God.

BSA 100

This past weekend, we spent the weekend camping with 5000+ of our closest friends, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts is one of our country's great institutions, and its 100th birthday is a big deal. In the coming weeks, I plan to blog on the importance of the Boy Scouts' core values, but, for today, I thought that I would give my general impression of the Boy Scouts, and why all for of my children (yes, the girls, too) are part of the BSA.

The Boy Scouts do a remarkable job of taking boys and turning them into men; and when I say men, I mean young men that mothers would be proud of - young men that you would be proud to have date, or even marry your daughters. I remember, years ago, attending a dinner where young men from our area who had achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the past year were being honored. As each of them were coming forward to receive their award, I noticed that these were not your average 16, 17 and 18 year old boys. I didn't know the young men, but just by three way they carried themselves - their posture, their air of confidence -you can tell that they were a cut above the typical teenage boy. My girls are in high school now, and I can attest to the fact that those young Eagle Scouts were much closer to the type of boy I would like my girls to bring home with them than 90% of the boys I see going into their high school.

I am often asked why it is that I insist that my children are involved in scouting. There are many, many, reasons.there is the fact that the values of the Boy Scouts largely coincide with my own, and are values I want to instill in my children. There is the fact that my children, as is the case with many children in this generation, don't spend nearly enough time outdoors. The number one reason, however, is this: The older our children get, the less influence we, as parents, have on them, and the more influence their friends have. Having my children involved in scouts allows me to help them pick their friends.

A lot has been made, in the last decade or so, of things that the Boy Scouts don't believe - associations that they choose not to make. In fact, it is my belief that far too much has been made of this. If the Boy Scouts were producing young men who were biased on the basis of condition, color or creed, it would be fair to criticize then for the associations that they choose not to make. The fact of the matter is that they do not. Although tolerance is not mentioned in the scout oath, law, motto, slogan or code, it must be being taught somewhere, because scouts, as a rule, are a tolerant bunch. That being the case, would be better served by focusing on the values that the scouts do teach, rather than emphasizing things that they do not.

I'm Taking My Ball...

What ever happened to being a good loser? Time after time in this election cycle, instead of losing graciously, giving a concession speech, and supporting the victor, the losing candidate has acted like a jilted lover that says, "If I can't have them, no one can."

First there was Charlie Crist. As far as Crist was concerned, the Florida Senate seat was already his. There may not have been a Kennedy seat in Massachusetts, but there was certainly a Crist seat in Florida. As is often the case in life, though, things didn't go according to plan. Along came young, handsome, charismatic, Marco Rubio, who defeated Crist handily in the Republican primary. A real man, at this point, would have shaken hands and wished his opponent luck in the general election. Not Charlie Crist, though. He went home and started doing math. Would it be possible, he wondered, to run as an Independent and pull enough votes to still win? In the end, he decided that he could, and, regardless of the fact that he had been a life-long Republican, what he really was for was himself, and he launched a campaign as an Independent.

Then there it the unusual case of Tom Tancredo. The former congressman from Colorado had not even run for Governor. He just decided that the two top Republican candidates for the post just weren't up to his standards. So, what does Tancredo do? Why the noble thing, of course. He threatened them. If the winner of the Republican primary didn't immediately withdraw from the race, leaving the door open for another, more suitable, Tancredo approved candidate to run, he would run against them as the candidate of the Constitution party. Well, true to his word, when the victor in the Republican primary didn't withdraw, Tancredo announced his candidacy, and with that, the life-long Republican nearly assured that a Democrat would reside in Colorado's governor's mansion for the next for years.

In the first few days after her loss in the Republican primary, it appeared that Lisa Murkowski was going to do the right thing, and concede gracefully. To her credit, she did at least concede, instead of demanding recount after recount, or worse, bringing the election to the courts and challenging the validity of votes. But instead of throwing heer support behind Joe Miller,she has kept her options open, and is considering mounting a write-in campaign. This is REALLY a case of thinking that a Senate seat has a family moniker attached to it. This seat was once held by Murkowski's father. She first obtained it, or should I say inherited it, when her father was elected governor, and appointed her to fill out the remainder of his term. She haas since been reelected, but I guess this just shows how difficult it is to give up one's inheritance.

I suppose, however, that I am being at least somewhat hypocritical, though, because this phenomenon is not restricted to Republicans. In 2006, primary voters, angered at his strong support of the Iraq war, defeated Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman proceeded to mount a successful campaign as an Independent in the general election. I, at the time, was thrilled by this. Maybe it is because I have always liked Lieberman, maybe it was because he was sticking it to the extreme elements of his party. Whatever the reason, or rationalization, I myself have not been completely consistent on this issue, and honesty requires that this be noted.

Deem and Redeem

When the health care bill was finally passed, it was done using a technique called deem and pass. This is because, with the election of Scott Brown, Harry Reid lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House could not amend the bill, or it would be filibustered by the Senate. The only way to get the bill to President Obama's desk was to pass the Senate version of the bill, which the House was loathe to do. To avoid an embarrassing vote, the House decided to"deem" that the Senate bill had passed, rather than actually passing it.

This has caused me to wonder: If the Republicans do win control of the House in November, would it be possible for them to nullify this vote by "deeming" that the Senate bill had NOT passed. This probably won't happen, not is it likely to be tried, but it would seem to a layman such as me that something that has merely been deemed to have passed should not have the same force of law as it would if an actual vote had taken place.

California's Prop 14 - Good Intentions, Bad Ida

In one week, Californian's will have a chance to vote on Proposition 14, a proposition that will change the way primary elections are conducted. Essentially, the change would do away with the current practice of Republicans voting for the Republican nominee should be in the general election, and Democrats voting for who they would like the Democratic nominee to be. Instead, there would be one single ballot, with all candidates listed together. Everyone would vote for the candidate they liked best, and the top two vote-getters, no matter who they are, would run against each other in the general election in November. Heck, candidates wouldn't even have to declare their political affiliation.

The idea is that, by allowing us to vote for our favorite candidate, regardless of party, that we will elect more moderate candidates. This would also open the primary to the growing percentage of voters that are registering as Independents.

I am all for getting more people involved in the primaries, but this is not the right way to do it. Political Parties are kind of like clubs, and in the primary, they put forward the person they feel is their best candidate for whatever office is being contended. Why should people that are not members of the club be able to vote for who they think should be the club's leaders? Should Kiwanis be able to vote for the leadership of the Rotary Club? Then why should Democrats be able to vote for who they think the Republican nominee should be, or vice-versa. Besides, if there really was a candidate for another party that you wanted to vote for, you can change your registration any time you want, up to 30 days before the election.

Needless to say, I am encouraging a NO vote on Proposition 14. Democrats can vote for Democrats, Republicans for Republicans, and Greens for Greens. Sure, Independents are still left out in the proverbial cold, but this is not the right way to accommodate them. There are currently two Independents in the US Senate, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. Both of them choose to caucus with the Democrats. If you really want to allow Independents to participate in the primary process, but still retain their status as Independent, perhaps we should allow Independents to declare in their voter registration who they wish to "caucus" with, and sallow them to vote in that party's primary. The same rules would still apply, any changes to voter registration would have to take place 30 days prior to the election.

It was two years ago that Rush Limbaugh was encouraging his dittoheads to switch party allegiance so that they could vote in the Democratic Primary in states like Pennsylvania in order to prolong the Democrats' primary fight. I thought at the time it was a despicable move. Proposition 14 would make shenanigans like this both easier and more common. Vote NO on Proposition 14.

Musings on Health Care and the Third Amendment

Congress has done it. They couldn't go through the gate. They couldn't make it over the fence. They tried to pole vault, but the pole wasn't long enough. They parachuted, but got caught up in the trees. So they dug. They dug deep. They found a way to dig a tunnel through the muck and the mud of Washington politics. And so it has come to pass that the Senate's Health Care has been passed by the House, and it has been amended through the reconciliation process.

I was reading through the Bill of Rights the other day, and came across what may be the Amendment that has the least affect on our daily lives today - the Third Amendment. It reads, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

We really don't think about this amendment anymore - I mean, come on, the idea of having soldiers quartered in our homes at any time, let alone in a time of peace, seems almost laughable. But why was this so important to the founders? I suspect that it had to do with stuff. Our stuff. And the right to do with our stuff what we please. We didn't want to have to put soldiers up in our homes because, well, they were ours, and it wasn't right for the government to tell us what to do with it. Now, I am not trying to argue that the Third Amendment prohibits the new Health Insurance Mandate, certainly not in a legal sense. But is this really any more of a stretch than finding a right to "privacy" in the amendment, as was done in the famous Griswald case.

I guess that what I am saying is exactly what Justice Louis Brandeis stated in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States back in 1928. We have the "right to be left alone." Well, maybe we used to.

President Obama: Universities Need More Money

President Barack, in his first State of the Union Address, has announced that he doesn't think that it costs enough to go to college. Apparently, Harvard College's endowment of $36,556,284,000 (which increased by 5.5% from 2007 to 2008) isn't quite sufficient. Yes, you read that right, Harvard's endowment is in excess of $36.5 billion.

What's that? You didn't hear that in the President's speech last night? OK, he didn't phrase it in quite that way. Here is what he did say.

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.

That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The government is going to give everybody up to $2,500/year for four years of college and increase the amount of grants available at the same time. In fourteen months, I will have four teenage children. Three years from now, I will have four children in high school. I expect that all four of them will attend college. I should have been on my feet cheering the fact that so much money was going to be made available to help me put my kids through college.

I wasn't.

The more that government tries to help make higher education more affordable by providing assistance in the form of grants (the tax credit is essentially a $2,500/year grant) and loans, the higher college tuition becomes. It's really fairly simple economics - the number of dollars vying for the same number of seats results in inflation in the form of higher tuition.

If I had $5,000 to spend on college tuition prior to this new tax credit, then I would now have $7,500. That would be great news if it weren't for one small fact; nearly everyone else in the country would also have an extra $2,500 to spend on college tuition. Unless there were an increase in the total number of seats available, each college and university would still have the same sized slice of the higher education pie. It's just that the pie would be bigger.

Most of the "elite" colleges, the ones that parents like to brag about their progeny attending, don't need any more money. Of the schools with the ten largest endowments, only one, Columbia, saw the size of their endowment shrink from 2007 to 2008, and that was less than one-tenth of one percent. Of the top 30, there were thirteen schools who were less well endowed in 2008 than they were in 2007 - almost exactly one-third of the schools on the list.

College tuition as not increased just because it costs that much more to give a student a college education, they have increased because of market forces, higher costs merely being one of many factors involved. Giving families more money to spend on higher education may sound good, but when it results in ever higher tuition, the benefit is significantly diminished. Of course, a President that has never had to balance a ledger might not be expected to realize this. Barack Obama may not have said outright that college tuition should be higher, but he might as well have.

Sharpen the Hatchets

Unless I missed it, President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, boasted of $20 billion in cuts that he was able to make in the past year as he went "line by line" through the budget. Elizabeth MacDonald of the Fox Business Channel has done a bit better, identifying as much as $1.5 trillion in cuts that could be made in the federal budget (article here). Granted, much of this is in the form of assets that the federal government owns, but has no use for, but even without that there is upwards of $300 billion in cuts that could be made nearly immediately. Here are some of the highlights:

--Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, or 9.4%. Includes overpayment rates of 7.8% and 15.4% in the Medicare fee for service and Advantage programs, respectively.

--Labor: $12.3 billion, or 9.9%. Almost all of the overpayments were in the unemployment insurance program.

--Treasury: $12.3 billion, or 25.5%. All of it was attributed to overpayments in the earned income tax credit.

--Social Security Administration: $8 billion, or 1.2%, in overpayments.

--Agriculture: $4.3 billion in overpayments, or 5.9% of total department spending. Much of it was in the food stamp, federal crop insurance and school meals programs.

--Transportation: $1.5 billion, or 3%. Much of it was in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.

--Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion, or 2.7%. That included overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.

--Housing and Urban Development: $1 billion, or 3.5%. All attributed to public housing and rental assistance.

--Defense: $849 million, or 0.5%.

--Homeland Security: $644.5 million, or 3.7%. Much of it was in the Homeland Security grant program as well as Disaster Relief Fund Vendor Payments.

--Education: $599 million, or 2.1%.

It is interesting to note that, of the agencies listed that overpayed, the Department of Defense, long lampooned for things such as the $600 toilet seat, was actually, by this metric, the best stewards of our money, both in terms of total dollars ($849 million - behind only Homeland Security and Education) and percent of overpayments (0.5%). The total for all these overpayments is a whopping $98 billion - nearly 5 times the $20 billion the President seemed so proud of.

Another $123.5 billion could be cut from the budget by merely eliminating programs that don't work.

The OMB has something called the Program Assessment Rating Tool. It found 218
government programs that were either inadequate or ineffective virtually
throughout the entire government--programs run by the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, HHS, Homeland Security, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, the VA, Army Corps of
Engineers, the EPA, the CFTC, EEOC, and the FCC.

Of course, this is the Fox Business channel - FOX for Pet's sake. Of course FOX is going to be able to find programs to cut. According to MacDonald, though, "these are items that government officials say should be cut." The question, then, is why they haven't been cut yet. When government officials say that government should be cut, it goes without saying that it should be cut.

So, that was more than $200 billion in cuts, but it pales in comparison to the $1.2 trillion in unused federal assets. Now, when I first saw that number, I assumed that this was the amount that could be raised if these assets were sold, but apparently this is not the case.

One alarming example of the government’s wasteful holdings is Chicago’s Old Main Post Office, a 2.5 million-square-foot abandoned structure that has been vacant since 1997 and costs $2 million to maintain annually, (the government recently moved to unload it, after spending more than $26 million to maintain it, government sources note).

So, not only do we, the people, own property that we do nothing with, but we pay for the privilege.

Those on the left often pay lip service to the idea of budget cuts, but like to say that what is needed is "a scalpel, not a hatchet." In this case, however, I think it is time for use to break out the hatchets.

Is Image Everything?

[Obama's] improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.” Mort Zuckerman, US News & World Report

Do we really have a better image in the world if we are: A) not respected; and B) not to be counted on?

With My Eyes Open

Some time ago, I wrote a post about praying with your eyes open. I continue to do this from time to time, and because of it, I saw somethng today that most people missed. I attended the wedding of a young couple today, and during a prayer, the pastor said something about blessing them with children. As he said this, I saw th groom nod his head (actually,his whole upper body) with such earnestness and enthusiasm that you could tell how much it meant to him to be able to start a family with his new bride. If my eyes were closed, I would have missed this. I'm glad I didn't. I will be remembering this in my own prayers tonight.

We Hold These Truths...

It is so simple, yet so eloquent - that most important phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We take it as a statement of faith, that we are all created equal, and that we have unalienable Rights. Three of these rights are listed for us - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - but these are only some of the rights that we believe that our Creator has endowed us with. The problem is, nowhere, and at no time (to my knowledge) have we attempted to identify any unalienable rights beyond these three.

The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights for American citizens, but today, we have millions of people living within our borders that are not Americans. Some are here legally, some are not. Additionally, we hold individuals as prisoners that have been captured on or near the field of battle. While none of these people may not necessarily enjoy all the rights promised by the Constitution, if the Declaration means anything to us, there remain rights that are unalienable, that every person on the planet has, regardless of gender, race or creed.

So, what are these Rights of Man, and wouldn't it be worth the time to create some sort of document that outlines them, the same way as the Bill of Rights specifically identifies some of the rights protected by the Constitution? It could be a sort of Universal Bill of Rights. We know the first three - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Beyond that, though, it becomes murky, and so I am asking, what other rights, beyond those mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence, should we consider to be unalienable. I would posit that another addition to the list would be a writ of Habeas Corpus, that anyone being held should have the right to petition against illegal imprisonment. Yet another would probably be the right NOT to be tortured, although there are arguments about whether there should be the rare exception to this, as well as what rises to the level of torture. There must be others as well. The question is, what are they.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

I remember that, in the aftermath of 9/11, I was angry. I was angry, of course, at the terrorists who perpetrated this, but I was also angry with Major League Baseball.

Now, I may have been one of only a handful of people in the country that was angry with MLB, but I was. Why? Because they cancelled/suspended games. In my opinion, if we started changing our behavior, and cowering in fear, then the terrorists had won.

As soon as games commenced, I promised that not only would I attend the nearest MLB game, but that I would take my two sons (at the time aged 3 and 4) to the game with me. It was a memorable game. Actually, I don't remember anything about the game itself, but the memory of going to the game will be burned into my brain forever.

It was at Dodger Stadium, but instead of Dodger Blue, we wore red, white and blue. My boys were not old enough to really pay attention to the game, so I had brought rolls of patriotic stickers that were soon plastered over my body like patriotic chain mail. I let the boys wander a little around our section on the field level, and they passed out stickers to everyone. I looked up at my older boy, who gave me a look that said to me, "look what I am about to do." With that, he bolted - straight for the field.

I think this is every young parent's worst nightmare. There I was, one parent with two small boys, heading in opposite directions. I barked at my youngest to stay put, and took off after my son, reaching him just as he reached the fence along the right-field foul line. I don't know if he would have tried to make it over the wall, but that scene had played out in my head, and to this day, I don't know if I would have gone over the wall after him or not.

I was reminded of my anger over the missing games from the 2001 Major League Baseball season, by an article I read this weekend in Salon, by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, in turn refers to an article by David Brooks, which postulates that we, as a people, have adapted an adolescent view that government can and should keep us safe. In Greenwald's words, this becomes a "most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation."

Ultimately, both Brooks and Greenwald are correct. In the aftermath of 9/11, did any of us believe that it would be some eight years before we would see another terrorist attack on American soil? I think that, when we saw the smoke rising from those towers, and the Pentagon, we viewed it as an act of war, and we expected there to be other attacks to come. Only years of relative safety and security could have bred that kind of expectation. The federal government may have, as one of its primary directives, national security, but it is both unrealistic and naive to expect perfection it its pursuit thereof.

As a nation, we have come to look to our government to protect us, to keep us safe, to keep us from feeling pain. This is not, by any means, confined to national security. In everything from health care reform to global warming, we are asking to be kept safe and pain-free. We expect it from other areas of life, too. Did your doctor misdiagnose you? See you in court, because that shouldn't be allowed.

To quote the Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride, "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." Not only is life full of pain, it is that constant threat of pain, and fear of it, that motivates us. But we have been sold something, indeed, and it comes with a price. Every time we try to buy protection from some of our pain, we pay for it with a bit of our liberty. Greenwald points this out in regard to national security, but it is just as true when it comes to health care and global warming as well.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his First Inaugural Address, said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." While it may not actually be the only thing we should be afraid of, it should, perhaps be our biggest fear. So many of the things that we have been afraid of have turned out to be unfounded, whether it be Alar in apples, or the threat of heterosexual aids, the coming ice-age predicted in the early 1970s, or the dire threat of second-hand smoke, the cure is often worse than the cause, whether real or merely perceived.

Why did I go to that baseball game with my boys in 2001? Because I wasn't going to let fear win out. We need to accept that "life is pain", because with every bit of pain we try to take away, we are taking a little bit of "living." Fort Hood massacre-ist Nadal Hassan wrote, as the final bullet-point of a presentation, said that "we love death more than you love life." We need to take this as a challenge, to love life, and live it, without fear, more than they love death, and more than we fear death. When we can do that, fear will have lost its hold on us, and we will be truly free.

Mission Statements

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal (article here), describes the 2000's as a decade of missions forgotten. From the federal government, to Wall Street, to Congress, the priesthood and the classroom, too many of our great institutions have forgotten what their purpose, their mission is.

The new year is a time when many of us take the time to make resolutions, to think about the things in your life that you might want to change. Perhaps, though, we should think not just about making resolutions, but instead, refocusing and redefining what our mission in life should be. Perhaps, we should develop New Year's Mission Statements in conjunction with our New Year's Resolutions. What is it that is your purpose in life, and what can you do to help you to fulfill this mission of yours in the next year? Isn't that worth as much as effort as the decision to lose that next 10 pounds?

The Difference of a Decade

After reading the article, Six Sources of Liebermania, where Josh Greenman attempts to categorize the left's contempt for Joe Lieberman, I was brought back, for just a moment, to the Presidential race of 10 years ago. More specifically, I was brought back to the Vice-Presidential debate of that year - a sit-down between Lieberman and Dick Cheney. I was mesmerized by that debate, as it was full of substance and civility, two things not always present in our modern system of political discourse. I remember thinking, after that debate, that I would love to have the chance to vote for a Cheney/Lieberman, or even Lieberman/Cheney ticket, and that either one of them would make a better President than either of the stiffs at the top of the ticket.

That is how I thought of both George W. Bush and Al Gore, a couple of stiffs. Both of them struck me as lightweights, but listening to Cheney and Lieberman... those were men, and they had what the pundits would call, gravitas, a seriousness of purpose, that could only come with the experience that they both had accumulated over the years.

Today, looking back, I stand by my assessment. I still have the utmost respect for both these men. It is interesting, though, that those two men, linked for all time by that race, would today find themselves among the most hated men in America by the political left.

What a difference a decade makes.