Monday, January 18, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Bipartisanship After 2010 Election
My short answer hovers somewhere between “Maybe” and “No”-- but not for the reasons you’re thinking.
My answer is not cynical (at least I don’t think it is). My answer leans toward “No,” not because of party politics, but because of intra-party politics. Both parties have seen ideological battles recently and I suspect that this trend will accelerate.
The Republicans worked themselves into a snit over the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, when county Republican chairmen/women chose New York State Senator Dede Scozzafava as the Republican nominee, only to have a third party (New York Conservative Party) candidate, Doug Hoffman, harness rank-and-file Republican disappointment with the decision and ride it to within a few hundred votes of victory after Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat.
Even more recently, Congressional Democrats, looking at polls showing that the American voter is becoming disenchanted with their agenda, have been having a hard time passing legislation because conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats and liberals have started to fight. This likely will continue now that President Obama has announced his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan; a position anathema to the anti-war Left wing of the Democratic party.
Anti-war liberals, who until now have closely followed President Obama and his agenda, may feel liberated to criticize his decision. Liberal activists may likewise feel liberated to criticize him on this as well as other decisions they’ve held back on criticizing.
Some prominent Congressional Blue Dog Democrats are so disenchanted that they have announced within the past week or so that they will not run for re-election. This exodus might accelerate if President Obama’s and Congressional Democrat’s favorability numbers continue to fall.
Gallup just announced that President Obama’s approval rating is now 47%, the lowest level of any president at this point in his term since Gallup began polling in 1938. At 27%, Congress’ approval rating is even lower. Slightly more than one-third of Americans (36%) think that the country is on the right track.
How this will all play into the 2010 election – as well as its aftermath and hope for bipartisanship – is at this time murky.
On the Republican side, right after the 2010 Congressional elections, the 2012 presidential campaign will commence and Republicans will likely continue the process of defining for themselves what it means to be a Republican. This will pit social conservatives against fiscal conservatives against national security conservatives against conservative populists (or some combination thereof).
A final reason that bipartisanship will likely not prevail: Debt. Money and budgets will be tight. Some in Congress want to continue the spending spree while others want to restrain spending and pay down debt. This will cause a lot of strain in government at all levels, in Congress, in state governments and in local governments.
Most people have a hard time understanding and conceptualizing billions and trillions of dollars, but think of it this way: In 2006, $1 trillion was raised for federal coffers from income taxes. How much did you pay in income taxes that year?
We’re now approaching $10 trillion in debt, not counting the unfunded ticking time bombs of Social Security and Medicare. Take your personal 2006 tax number and multiply by 10. Daunting, isn’t it? Of course, we have nothing to worry about: Those wacky Congressional Budget Office (CBO) economists assume that the tax rate will have no effect on your willingness to work, so incomes will, at a minimum, remain stagnate and the government will continue to bring in the same amount of money.
As an aside, the same CBO reported on December 4th that our government – presently only two months into the 2010 fiscal year – is already $292 billion in the red, and posted a record $1.4 trillion of debt for fiscal year 2009, which ended September 30th.
This increasing debt load has put in jeopardy the United States’ AAA bond rating, according to Bloomberg News. Our debt is now 97.5% of our Gross Domestic Product, defined as the total amount of all goods and services produced in the United States in one year.
The challenges of our debt coupled with the many other important issues that need to be addressed to reform our country for the future are what can bring people from both parties together to work in a bipartisan fashion without regard to entrenched interests. For the most part, the American people agree on the big issues. Our politicians at all levels need to shed narrow partisan interests and serve the needs of the American people.
In short, when times are tough, voters expect politicians to stop the clever games and “gotcha” politics and focus on the real needs – to make the tough decisions and not kick the can down the road. It is the hope that our elected leaders will realize the growing frustration of the American voter and get serious that leads me to give a final answer of “Maybe” to the question of bipartisanship.
My answer is not cynical (at least I don’t think it is). My answer leans toward “No,” not because of party politics, but because of intra-party politics. Both parties have seen ideological battles recently and I suspect that this trend will accelerate.
The Republicans worked themselves into a snit over the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, when county Republican chairmen/women chose New York State Senator Dede Scozzafava as the Republican nominee, only to have a third party (New York Conservative Party) candidate, Doug Hoffman, harness rank-and-file Republican disappointment with the decision and ride it to within a few hundred votes of victory after Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat.
Even more recently, Congressional Democrats, looking at polls showing that the American voter is becoming disenchanted with their agenda, have been having a hard time passing legislation because conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats and liberals have started to fight. This likely will continue now that President Obama has announced his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan; a position anathema to the anti-war Left wing of the Democratic party.
Anti-war liberals, who until now have closely followed President Obama and his agenda, may feel liberated to criticize his decision. Liberal activists may likewise feel liberated to criticize him on this as well as other decisions they’ve held back on criticizing.
Some prominent Congressional Blue Dog Democrats are so disenchanted that they have announced within the past week or so that they will not run for re-election. This exodus might accelerate if President Obama’s and Congressional Democrat’s favorability numbers continue to fall.
Gallup just announced that President Obama’s approval rating is now 47%, the lowest level of any president at this point in his term since Gallup began polling in 1938. At 27%, Congress’ approval rating is even lower. Slightly more than one-third of Americans (36%) think that the country is on the right track.
How this will all play into the 2010 election – as well as its aftermath and hope for bipartisanship – is at this time murky.
On the Republican side, right after the 2010 Congressional elections, the 2012 presidential campaign will commence and Republicans will likely continue the process of defining for themselves what it means to be a Republican. This will pit social conservatives against fiscal conservatives against national security conservatives against conservative populists (or some combination thereof).
A final reason that bipartisanship will likely not prevail: Debt. Money and budgets will be tight. Some in Congress want to continue the spending spree while others want to restrain spending and pay down debt. This will cause a lot of strain in government at all levels, in Congress, in state governments and in local governments.
Most people have a hard time understanding and conceptualizing billions and trillions of dollars, but think of it this way: In 2006, $1 trillion was raised for federal coffers from income taxes. How much did you pay in income taxes that year?
We’re now approaching $10 trillion in debt, not counting the unfunded ticking time bombs of Social Security and Medicare. Take your personal 2006 tax number and multiply by 10. Daunting, isn’t it? Of course, we have nothing to worry about: Those wacky Congressional Budget Office (CBO) economists assume that the tax rate will have no effect on your willingness to work, so incomes will, at a minimum, remain stagnate and the government will continue to bring in the same amount of money.
As an aside, the same CBO reported on December 4th that our government – presently only two months into the 2010 fiscal year – is already $292 billion in the red, and posted a record $1.4 trillion of debt for fiscal year 2009, which ended September 30th.
This increasing debt load has put in jeopardy the United States’ AAA bond rating, according to Bloomberg News. Our debt is now 97.5% of our Gross Domestic Product, defined as the total amount of all goods and services produced in the United States in one year.
The challenges of our debt coupled with the many other important issues that need to be addressed to reform our country for the future are what can bring people from both parties together to work in a bipartisan fashion without regard to entrenched interests. For the most part, the American people agree on the big issues. Our politicians at all levels need to shed narrow partisan interests and serve the needs of the American people.
In short, when times are tough, voters expect politicians to stop the clever games and “gotcha” politics and focus on the real needs – to make the tough decisions and not kick the can down the road. It is the hope that our elected leaders will realize the growing frustration of the American voter and get serious that leads me to give a final answer of “Maybe” to the question of bipartisanship.
Infrastructure
In an August 1859, speech on “the issues of the day” in Council Bluff, Iowa, private citizen Abraham Lincoln discussed the need for a transcontinental railroad. Three years later, in July 1862, President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Enabling Act into law, with the hope that the building of railroads would help not only with the war effort and unify the country, but also to facilitate the westward migration of immigrants and commerce.
The specifics of the Pacific Railroad Enabling Act might today be called a “public-private partnership.” In it, the government of the United States provided cash subsidies to the private companies building the railroad. In addition, the government gave the companies grants to federally-owned land with 400 foot right-of-ways, plus ten square miles of land (10 sections) adjacent to the track for each mile built. The land was given in a “checkerboard” fashion in order to leave land available for development by others who might want to buy from the government. The private companies, in turn, used the land they were given to issue bonds to raise additional private funds for railroad construction.
Anyone who has recently driven from Council Bluffs through Lincoln’s Illinois to Indiana knows that our present method of authorizing, paying for and building massive infrastructure projects in the United States is broken and needs to be fixed. It’s not just Interstate 80; the evidence is all around us. From the I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minnesota, to a nation-wide 1950s-era air traffic control system, to overloaded electricity grids in California, to subway systems in the Northeast where there are continuous public safety concerns, our country is literally falling apart.
In response to the financial downturn of the past two years, China has not resorted to fiscal stimulus gimmicks that merely push money out to states so that state officials can avoid making tough choices, they have chosen to make significant infrastructure improvements that will enhance their competitiveness in the world market. One example of Chinese foresight is that they are building a network of high-speed passenger and freight railroads to better link production centers, markets and ports. By high-speed, we’re talking about trains that will travel in excess of 200 miles per hour.
This is smart investment and a component of what we in the United States will need to do more of to remain competitive in light of rising China, India and Brazil. At the national level, we need to do away with business-as-usual and authorize infrastructure projects that meet the criteria of making us safer, more resilient, more competitive and future-oriented.
National goals need to be set for projects which are really needed and which serve strategic national interests. These should not be set by Congress but by a public-private commission, of which the 9-11 Commission is an example. The 9-11 Commission’s recommendations were presented to Congress and voted on apart from the usual Congressional committee process.
This will mean doing away with outdated laws that constrict the building of significant national infrastructure. For example, states can presently veto the building of electric transmission lines if they cross from a neighboring state. This serves narrow parochial interests and is absurd when it comes to the goal of providing power to a nation. It burns time, energy and money – ultimately costs consumers more money while providing less power.
Positive change will also mean more transparency and accountability when it comes to funding. In 1981, there were ten Congressional earmarks in the surface transportation bill. In the 2005 authorization there were more than 6,000 Congressional earmarks. We need to get back to a system where these sorts of funding decisions are made on the basis of merit rather than political considerations. All levels of government, federal, state and local, need to take responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, accountably and transparently. Absent this, political fiefdoms, rather than needed infrastructure, will be built.
Coupled with increased transparency and accountability, we should cut red tape and encourage innovation, flexibility and incentives to get the job done. As an example, a 1994 earthquake in Northridge, CA, demolished the overpass bridges on Interstate 10, one of the most heavily used freeways in the nation. One estimate put the cost of unrealized productivity, gasoline consumption from alternative routes and delays in shipping to be at least $1 million each day. Governor Wilson was told that the repair of the bridges would take two years and two months (26 months) due to legal public hearing requirements.
Fortunately, the California code confers emergency powers to the governor, including the authority to suspend burdensome regulations for the duration of a declared emergency. Governor Wilson promptly suspended the public hearing requirement and cut red tape. He also added a bonus/penalty provision to the bridge reconstruction bid process. For each day in advance of the agreed upon completion date, the winning bidder would receive a bonus of $200,000 (substantially less than the $1 million estimated economic cost suffered for each day I-10 was closed); and for each day that the contractor was late, the contractor would incur a penalty of $200,000. The winning bidder made almost as much on the bonus as on the bid; and I-10 was restored to public use not in two years and two months but in two months and two days. The result was not only a completed project and improved traffic flow, but a reduction in time of approximately 85% from what was initially estimated and an economic savings of roughly $60 million.
Finally, we need to revisit the way in which we finance infrastructure projects. Presently, we do this by way of yearly appropriation, which is an incredibly inefficient way to fund major projects, like roads, ports, dams, airports, etc. A better way is illustrated by the process we use to fund major military platforms. In this instance, we use a single appropriation to fund the entire cost of a multi-year project like an aircraft carrier. In this way, the contractor knows that the entire amount is available and work will not have to start and stop due to the vagaries of the legislative process. In short, we need capital budgets for infrastructure projects rather than the piecemeal funding process presently used by governments.
Public-private partnerships also are an option, with government working hand-in-hand with private industry to develop, build or manage infrastructure projects. This model is increasingly being used in the Northeast. Within the past week, Connecticut reached a 30-year agreement with a private consortium to build, manage, repair and maintain the state’s rest areas. It is a win-win agreement.
Do nothing, and we can wait and watch while our national infrastructure falls around our ears. We need to find the political will to change. Using the four broad criteria outlined above, we will move away from the business-as-usual, overly political process we now have, and get back to strategic infrastructure investments of the kind that Lincoln used to help our country emerge as a world power.
The specifics of the Pacific Railroad Enabling Act might today be called a “public-private partnership.” In it, the government of the United States provided cash subsidies to the private companies building the railroad. In addition, the government gave the companies grants to federally-owned land with 400 foot right-of-ways, plus ten square miles of land (10 sections) adjacent to the track for each mile built. The land was given in a “checkerboard” fashion in order to leave land available for development by others who might want to buy from the government. The private companies, in turn, used the land they were given to issue bonds to raise additional private funds for railroad construction.
Anyone who has recently driven from Council Bluffs through Lincoln’s Illinois to Indiana knows that our present method of authorizing, paying for and building massive infrastructure projects in the United States is broken and needs to be fixed. It’s not just Interstate 80; the evidence is all around us. From the I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minnesota, to a nation-wide 1950s-era air traffic control system, to overloaded electricity grids in California, to subway systems in the Northeast where there are continuous public safety concerns, our country is literally falling apart.
In response to the financial downturn of the past two years, China has not resorted to fiscal stimulus gimmicks that merely push money out to states so that state officials can avoid making tough choices, they have chosen to make significant infrastructure improvements that will enhance their competitiveness in the world market. One example of Chinese foresight is that they are building a network of high-speed passenger and freight railroads to better link production centers, markets and ports. By high-speed, we’re talking about trains that will travel in excess of 200 miles per hour.
This is smart investment and a component of what we in the United States will need to do more of to remain competitive in light of rising China, India and Brazil. At the national level, we need to do away with business-as-usual and authorize infrastructure projects that meet the criteria of making us safer, more resilient, more competitive and future-oriented.
National goals need to be set for projects which are really needed and which serve strategic national interests. These should not be set by Congress but by a public-private commission, of which the 9-11 Commission is an example. The 9-11 Commission’s recommendations were presented to Congress and voted on apart from the usual Congressional committee process.
This will mean doing away with outdated laws that constrict the building of significant national infrastructure. For example, states can presently veto the building of electric transmission lines if they cross from a neighboring state. This serves narrow parochial interests and is absurd when it comes to the goal of providing power to a nation. It burns time, energy and money – ultimately costs consumers more money while providing less power.
Positive change will also mean more transparency and accountability when it comes to funding. In 1981, there were ten Congressional earmarks in the surface transportation bill. In the 2005 authorization there were more than 6,000 Congressional earmarks. We need to get back to a system where these sorts of funding decisions are made on the basis of merit rather than political considerations. All levels of government, federal, state and local, need to take responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, accountably and transparently. Absent this, political fiefdoms, rather than needed infrastructure, will be built.
Coupled with increased transparency and accountability, we should cut red tape and encourage innovation, flexibility and incentives to get the job done. As an example, a 1994 earthquake in Northridge, CA, demolished the overpass bridges on Interstate 10, one of the most heavily used freeways in the nation. One estimate put the cost of unrealized productivity, gasoline consumption from alternative routes and delays in shipping to be at least $1 million each day. Governor Wilson was told that the repair of the bridges would take two years and two months (26 months) due to legal public hearing requirements.
Fortunately, the California code confers emergency powers to the governor, including the authority to suspend burdensome regulations for the duration of a declared emergency. Governor Wilson promptly suspended the public hearing requirement and cut red tape. He also added a bonus/penalty provision to the bridge reconstruction bid process. For each day in advance of the agreed upon completion date, the winning bidder would receive a bonus of $200,000 (substantially less than the $1 million estimated economic cost suffered for each day I-10 was closed); and for each day that the contractor was late, the contractor would incur a penalty of $200,000. The winning bidder made almost as much on the bonus as on the bid; and I-10 was restored to public use not in two years and two months but in two months and two days. The result was not only a completed project and improved traffic flow, but a reduction in time of approximately 85% from what was initially estimated and an economic savings of roughly $60 million.
Finally, we need to revisit the way in which we finance infrastructure projects. Presently, we do this by way of yearly appropriation, which is an incredibly inefficient way to fund major projects, like roads, ports, dams, airports, etc. A better way is illustrated by the process we use to fund major military platforms. In this instance, we use a single appropriation to fund the entire cost of a multi-year project like an aircraft carrier. In this way, the contractor knows that the entire amount is available and work will not have to start and stop due to the vagaries of the legislative process. In short, we need capital budgets for infrastructure projects rather than the piecemeal funding process presently used by governments.
Public-private partnerships also are an option, with government working hand-in-hand with private industry to develop, build or manage infrastructure projects. This model is increasingly being used in the Northeast. Within the past week, Connecticut reached a 30-year agreement with a private consortium to build, manage, repair and maintain the state’s rest areas. It is a win-win agreement.
Do nothing, and we can wait and watch while our national infrastructure falls around our ears. We need to find the political will to change. Using the four broad criteria outlined above, we will move away from the business-as-usual, overly political process we now have, and get back to strategic infrastructure investments of the kind that Lincoln used to help our country emerge as a world power.
Immigration
The United States of America is a success. We have the largest economy in the world and are among the largest in terms of both population and land area. Over the past 402 years we have successfully integrated millions of people of every race, creed and color. Each who came contributed to our success and became an “American.”
It is important that people want to come here. It is, in fact, essential. We need them to grow, remain dynamic and young; Europe discourages immigration and is increasingly becoming older.
We need immigration, but we also need an honest dialog about immigration that addresses current realities and challenges without falling back on charges of racism and xenophobia.
The last major piece of legislation that dealt with immigration, 1986’s Simpson-Mizzoli bill, promised three things:
1. Government would control the borders;
2. An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired; and,
3. A one-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
Once passed and amnesty granted, however, the government broke its promise to the American people and failed to follow-through on the first two provisions of the bill.
We need legal immigration and we need to address the realities brought about by the failure of the federal government to follow the Simpson-Mizzoli law. According to recent polling data, the American people agree broadly on a number of things that specifically address immigration and which should be incorporated into the solution:
•Americans support the expansion of the H-1B and H-2B visa programs (63-29), which make it easier for those immigrants with sought-after skills and knowledge to emigrate easily. We need educated immigrants to continue to innovate and grow economically.
•By 83 to 16 Americans support a worker visa program.
•Americans support a system by which immigration centers in foreign countries help people find jobs in the United States and to allow people to apply for worker visas (84-14).
•By a margin of 89-11, Americans support tamper-proof identification cards with biometric identifiers, such as photos and fingerprints, to track foreign workers. However, by 73-20, they wisely don’t believe that the federal government can administer such a program. Instead, this should be outsourced to Visa, Master Card or American Express, so that employers would have the benefit of 24/7 real-time verification so that forged or stolen cards can be immediately detected.
•Americans believe (93-6) that foreign workers who have made their way through the process should take an oath to obey the laws of the United States while here, and that they be immediately deported if they break the law.
•By 78-20, Americans believe that there should be heavy fines levied against businesses that knowingly hire illegals, and, by 83-15, support Internal Revenue Service audits of companies caught hiring illegals to make certain that taxes have been paid.
We all know, however, that there are millions of illegal workers already in the United States. What should we do about them? First, follow the current law and absolutely control the borders of the United States. This is a national security issue as much as an immigration issue.
Recognizing the fact that there are millions here illegally, we need to follow the advice of the American people, reflected above, and ask each illegal worker to come forward and answer one simple question: Do you wish to become a guest worker or a citizen? Failure to come forward will result in immediate deportation once caught.
If the individual wishes to remain a guest worker, he or she will have to obtain the worker visa mentioned above as well as pay a fine. If after one year he or she has not obtained a card, then he or she will be deported, along with any family also here illegally. Children of illegals born in the United States will be stripped of citizenship and also deported. I know this is harsh, but to be effective, this needs to have teeth.
For those who wish to become citizens, they will need to obtain the paperwork for permanent residents, begin the citizenship process and also pay a fine. However, we need to ensure not only that they become citizens, but that they become Americans. They must be mandated to attend citizenship classes that teach American history and they must learn English. It would be best if vouchers to pay for these classes are provided to the individuals so that they could take the classes offered, for money, by local schools. This will tie them and their families into the broader community.
Finally, it will also mean that English should become the official language of government. This is not to say that all other languages will be outlawed but that English only will be used in official government documents. Proficiency in the English language is a requirement of citizenship.
If politicians and elites had the good sense of the American people and implemented the ideas above, the issue of illegal immigration will soon be resolved and we can concentrate on growing our economy.
It is important that people want to come here. It is, in fact, essential. We need them to grow, remain dynamic and young; Europe discourages immigration and is increasingly becoming older.
We need immigration, but we also need an honest dialog about immigration that addresses current realities and challenges without falling back on charges of racism and xenophobia.
The last major piece of legislation that dealt with immigration, 1986’s Simpson-Mizzoli bill, promised three things:
1. Government would control the borders;
2. An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired; and,
3. A one-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.
Once passed and amnesty granted, however, the government broke its promise to the American people and failed to follow-through on the first two provisions of the bill.
We need legal immigration and we need to address the realities brought about by the failure of the federal government to follow the Simpson-Mizzoli law. According to recent polling data, the American people agree broadly on a number of things that specifically address immigration and which should be incorporated into the solution:
•Americans support the expansion of the H-1B and H-2B visa programs (63-29), which make it easier for those immigrants with sought-after skills and knowledge to emigrate easily. We need educated immigrants to continue to innovate and grow economically.
•By 83 to 16 Americans support a worker visa program.
•Americans support a system by which immigration centers in foreign countries help people find jobs in the United States and to allow people to apply for worker visas (84-14).
•By a margin of 89-11, Americans support tamper-proof identification cards with biometric identifiers, such as photos and fingerprints, to track foreign workers. However, by 73-20, they wisely don’t believe that the federal government can administer such a program. Instead, this should be outsourced to Visa, Master Card or American Express, so that employers would have the benefit of 24/7 real-time verification so that forged or stolen cards can be immediately detected.
•Americans believe (93-6) that foreign workers who have made their way through the process should take an oath to obey the laws of the United States while here, and that they be immediately deported if they break the law.
•By 78-20, Americans believe that there should be heavy fines levied against businesses that knowingly hire illegals, and, by 83-15, support Internal Revenue Service audits of companies caught hiring illegals to make certain that taxes have been paid.
We all know, however, that there are millions of illegal workers already in the United States. What should we do about them? First, follow the current law and absolutely control the borders of the United States. This is a national security issue as much as an immigration issue.
Recognizing the fact that there are millions here illegally, we need to follow the advice of the American people, reflected above, and ask each illegal worker to come forward and answer one simple question: Do you wish to become a guest worker or a citizen? Failure to come forward will result in immediate deportation once caught.
If the individual wishes to remain a guest worker, he or she will have to obtain the worker visa mentioned above as well as pay a fine. If after one year he or she has not obtained a card, then he or she will be deported, along with any family also here illegally. Children of illegals born in the United States will be stripped of citizenship and also deported. I know this is harsh, but to be effective, this needs to have teeth.
For those who wish to become citizens, they will need to obtain the paperwork for permanent residents, begin the citizenship process and also pay a fine. However, we need to ensure not only that they become citizens, but that they become Americans. They must be mandated to attend citizenship classes that teach American history and they must learn English. It would be best if vouchers to pay for these classes are provided to the individuals so that they could take the classes offered, for money, by local schools. This will tie them and their families into the broader community.
Finally, it will also mean that English should become the official language of government. This is not to say that all other languages will be outlawed but that English only will be used in official government documents. Proficiency in the English language is a requirement of citizenship.
If politicians and elites had the good sense of the American people and implemented the ideas above, the issue of illegal immigration will soon be resolved and we can concentrate on growing our economy.
Darfur
“…there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing…The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately.”
“I am deeply concerned by reports that the Bush Administration is negotiating a normalization of relations with the Government of Sudan…This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments…”
First, some background. Sudan’s population is mixed between those of Arab descent (the ruling group) and black Africans. The conflict in Darfur, Sudan, an area in Western Sudan roughly the size of France, began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Army and Justice and Equality Movement in Darfur took up arms against the government, accusing it of oppressing black African Sudanese in favor of Arab Sudanese. After initial direct attacks on Darfurians by government forces, the Sudanese military recruited the Janjaweed, a militia group comprised primarily of nomads.
The Sudanese government has been accused of tampering with evidence, such as covering up the existence of mass graves, arresting and harassing journalists and humanitarian workers.
The United States government has described the conflict in Darfur as genocide, but so far the United Nations has stopped short of this characterization, even though in a report issued in 2005, the U.N. recognized the Sudanese government’s history of atrocities in Darfur, including mass murders, aerial bombing of civilians and widespread rapes.
There are various estimates on the number of human casualties, but the consensus numbers are at least 400,000 killed and 2 million people displaced and living in refugee camps in conditions that are quite literally hellishly overcrowded and rife with disease.
In late 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling for a 26,000-troop UN peacekeeping force to supplement a poorly-funded and ill-equipped African Union force. In response, the Sudanese government launched a major offensive in Darfur the very next day. In 2007, the UN mission in Darfur accused Sudan’s government of orchestrating and active participation in “gross violations” and called for international action to protect civilians there.
In mid-2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. These charges included three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity, and two of murder. ICC prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. On 4 March, 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for president al-Bashir, though he has never been arrested or delivered to the court.
The two 2008 quotes from then-Senator Barack Obama noted above were meant to show that he was concerned about what was happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. Within the past two weeks, however, the Obama State Department has taken initial steps to normalize relations with the Government of Sudan, the very thing candidate Obama seemed to deplore in the campaign. What exactly will comprise the political and economic “menu of incentives and disincentives” the Obama Administration has in mind isn’t known. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that the menu on offer is a “classified annex to our strategy.”
The “tough sanctions” championed by candidate Obama seem to have morphed into a vague promise of improved relations only on indications of, “whether or not progress is being made.” Really tough; this is certain to make the government of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir shake with fear.
This may surprise you, but I agree fully with the statements of candidate Obama. President al-Bashir has for years made small concessions to the international community in order to stay in power. Given what is happening in Darfur, this is unacceptable. Working in concert with the international community, we should now bring real pressure to bear on the Sudanese government. They will not change until the international community puts substantial overt pressure on them.
Is the conflict in Darfur a threat to our national security interests? Not directly; but it is certainly not in the interests of the United States for genocide to be occurring anywhere on the planet. It is morally repugnant and must not be tolerated in the 21st Century.
What can the United States do? In conjunction with our fellow UN Security Council members, we must develop a list of conditions, metrics and timetables that the Sudanese government must meet. The list will not be negotiated with the Sudanese; it will be imposed by the UN. This will not be easy, but it must be done.
Security Council member China, for one, has to be convinced. China has growing interests in Africa as a source for oil and other natural resources, and is generally reluctant to pressure other governments on human rights policies for fear of being criticized itself. Still, we need China to make this work – Russia too – so our diplomats need to earn their pay and convince China and Russia that it is in their interests to work with the world community on stopping the abuses in Darfur.
In my view, sanctions should be immediately imposed and loosened only once Sudan has shown progress toward the conditions the international community sets for Darfur. If they backtrack, sanctions must immediately be re-imposed. This is the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration has concluded. Here are three immediate sanctions I advocate:
1. Impose a no-fly zone over Darfur. This could be patrolled by an international force consisting of NATO, African Union, and the forces of any other nation willing to take on this responsibility.
2. Privately make it clear to President al-Bashir that the member states of the UN Security Council hold him personally responsible for the actions of his forces and militias, and that if the genocide continues and the situation on-the-ground doesn’t measurably improve in one month’s time, he will be forcibly removed from office and taken for trial before the international Criminal Court in The Hague.
3. A more robust international force to monitor the situation in Darfur, assist with the delivery of humanitarian supplies and repel any attacks on civilians in Darfur. Our troops are busy enough, but we could still provide training, communications and logistics support. The U.S. is beginning the process of standing up our Africa Command (Africom), and the use of African Union and other forces from the region to assist in Darfur under our supervision would help us to assess potential partners. Help in monitoring the situation in Darfur could result in increased U.S. support to their military forces going forward.
Candidate Obama was right. It’s my hope that President Obama’s engagement strategy turns out to be more robust than it presently appears or there will be hundreds of thousands of more people from Darfur killed or displaced.
“I am deeply concerned by reports that the Bush Administration is negotiating a normalization of relations with the Government of Sudan…This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments…”
First, some background. Sudan’s population is mixed between those of Arab descent (the ruling group) and black Africans. The conflict in Darfur, Sudan, an area in Western Sudan roughly the size of France, began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Army and Justice and Equality Movement in Darfur took up arms against the government, accusing it of oppressing black African Sudanese in favor of Arab Sudanese. After initial direct attacks on Darfurians by government forces, the Sudanese military recruited the Janjaweed, a militia group comprised primarily of nomads.
The Sudanese government has been accused of tampering with evidence, such as covering up the existence of mass graves, arresting and harassing journalists and humanitarian workers.
The United States government has described the conflict in Darfur as genocide, but so far the United Nations has stopped short of this characterization, even though in a report issued in 2005, the U.N. recognized the Sudanese government’s history of atrocities in Darfur, including mass murders, aerial bombing of civilians and widespread rapes.
There are various estimates on the number of human casualties, but the consensus numbers are at least 400,000 killed and 2 million people displaced and living in refugee camps in conditions that are quite literally hellishly overcrowded and rife with disease.
In late 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling for a 26,000-troop UN peacekeeping force to supplement a poorly-funded and ill-equipped African Union force. In response, the Sudanese government launched a major offensive in Darfur the very next day. In 2007, the UN mission in Darfur accused Sudan’s government of orchestrating and active participation in “gross violations” and called for international action to protect civilians there.
In mid-2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. These charges included three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity, and two of murder. ICC prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. On 4 March, 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for president al-Bashir, though he has never been arrested or delivered to the court.
The two 2008 quotes from then-Senator Barack Obama noted above were meant to show that he was concerned about what was happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. Within the past two weeks, however, the Obama State Department has taken initial steps to normalize relations with the Government of Sudan, the very thing candidate Obama seemed to deplore in the campaign. What exactly will comprise the political and economic “menu of incentives and disincentives” the Obama Administration has in mind isn’t known. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that the menu on offer is a “classified annex to our strategy.”
The “tough sanctions” championed by candidate Obama seem to have morphed into a vague promise of improved relations only on indications of, “whether or not progress is being made.” Really tough; this is certain to make the government of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir shake with fear.
This may surprise you, but I agree fully with the statements of candidate Obama. President al-Bashir has for years made small concessions to the international community in order to stay in power. Given what is happening in Darfur, this is unacceptable. Working in concert with the international community, we should now bring real pressure to bear on the Sudanese government. They will not change until the international community puts substantial overt pressure on them.
Is the conflict in Darfur a threat to our national security interests? Not directly; but it is certainly not in the interests of the United States for genocide to be occurring anywhere on the planet. It is morally repugnant and must not be tolerated in the 21st Century.
What can the United States do? In conjunction with our fellow UN Security Council members, we must develop a list of conditions, metrics and timetables that the Sudanese government must meet. The list will not be negotiated with the Sudanese; it will be imposed by the UN. This will not be easy, but it must be done.
Security Council member China, for one, has to be convinced. China has growing interests in Africa as a source for oil and other natural resources, and is generally reluctant to pressure other governments on human rights policies for fear of being criticized itself. Still, we need China to make this work – Russia too – so our diplomats need to earn their pay and convince China and Russia that it is in their interests to work with the world community on stopping the abuses in Darfur.
In my view, sanctions should be immediately imposed and loosened only once Sudan has shown progress toward the conditions the international community sets for Darfur. If they backtrack, sanctions must immediately be re-imposed. This is the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration has concluded. Here are three immediate sanctions I advocate:
1. Impose a no-fly zone over Darfur. This could be patrolled by an international force consisting of NATO, African Union, and the forces of any other nation willing to take on this responsibility.
2. Privately make it clear to President al-Bashir that the member states of the UN Security Council hold him personally responsible for the actions of his forces and militias, and that if the genocide continues and the situation on-the-ground doesn’t measurably improve in one month’s time, he will be forcibly removed from office and taken for trial before the international Criminal Court in The Hague.
3. A more robust international force to monitor the situation in Darfur, assist with the delivery of humanitarian supplies and repel any attacks on civilians in Darfur. Our troops are busy enough, but we could still provide training, communications and logistics support. The U.S. is beginning the process of standing up our Africa Command (Africom), and the use of African Union and other forces from the region to assist in Darfur under our supervision would help us to assess potential partners. Help in monitoring the situation in Darfur could result in increased U.S. support to their military forces going forward.
Candidate Obama was right. It’s my hope that President Obama’s engagement strategy turns out to be more robust than it presently appears or there will be hundreds of thousands of more people from Darfur killed or displaced.
Afghanistan
Our piecemeal approach to Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake. I have long argued (since late 2001) that immediately after 9-11 we should have stated to the world our intention as a nation to defeat al-Qaeda and their extremist allies. We should have recognized it was a long-term venture and likened it to our commitment to defeat Soviet communism in the Cold War. In other words, that we view terrorism as a scourge to the civilized world and that we would lead a multi-year, multi-national coordinated military, diplomatic, trade and cultural effort of like-minded nations to eradicate it. This would give us the ability to implement an integrated national security strategy and architecture designed around our values and long-term security interests.
Unfortunately, the post 9-11 world didn’t unfold that way and we are now engaged on two foreign battlefields in military actions that most people – including many of those in the national security structure of the United States – view as disparate.
As a candidate for president, then-Senator Barak Obama said repeatedly that the fight in Afghanistan was the good war as compared to Iraq -- that it was a “war of necessity.” As president, Barak Obama stated in August of this year that our goals are to, “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.”
Upon assuming the presidency, Mr. Obama named a new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, charged with a strategic review and development of a go-forward plan. General McChrystal has made his recommendations to the president, yet it is only now that the debate on how to proceed has begun in the White House.
You would think that given his statements during the 2008 campaign and subsequent appointment of General McChrystal that President Obama would already have a fairly clear idea as to the broad course of action he would like to take in Afghanistan. If he believes what he has consistently said over the past year, that the fight in Afghanistan is a war of necessity and should be focused on the defeat of al-Qaeda, then the overriding consideration must be to support and strengthen Afghanistan in order to deny safe-havens to al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.
Muddling through with a strategy based upon political calculus rather than a military and diplomatic one would destroy the Obama presidency, and even more catastrophic, severely damage the long-term interests of the United States. One need only look at the Johnson presidency to see the parallels. The failure of President Johnson and his political advisors to let the military fight the war in Vietnam without the imposition of domestic political considerations led not only to our withdrawal and perceived defeat there, which was damaging enough, but it also led to an aggressive Soviet expansion in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.
Similarly, if we fail in Afghanistan the consequences will be far-reaching: al-Qaeda and extremist groups everywhere will know that America and the West are not serious and can be defeated if they are patient, cost us enough money and inflict enough pain; the al-Qaeda terrorist network and like-minded groups will again have a safe-haven in a lawless country; that these groups can continue unfettered in gaining immense amounts of cash to finance their operations through the opium trade; and, a destabilized Afghanistan could easily cause problems in neighboring countries.
Individuals and groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere are constantly judging the United States’ actions in the world based on their calculus, not our domestic political considerations. Failure, defeat or simply leaving where we have made a commitment makes them less likely to support or work with us in their country. These important potential internal allies will ask themselves, “Why risk everything if the Americans will leave when the going gets tough?”
So, what should we do? I agree with the President and his national security team’s assessment that the fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been ill-defined, under-resourced, under-funded and under-manned. I also agree with General McChrystal that we must implement a coherent and comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign built on the lessons learned in Iraq.
However, I would caution that Iraq and Afghanistan are inherently different and cannot be directly compared. Success in Afghanistan will be much harder than Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is backward, impoverished, tribal, mountainous, drug-ridden, decentralized, violent, has endemic corruption and a largely illiterate population. One important thing in common, though, is that the successful resolution of the challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan have ramifications for American foreign policy and our standing in the world long after we withdraw.
With this understanding as background, it is very important for President Obama to clearly and vividly articulate how he defines success in Afghanistan coupled with his vision of how Afghanistan will look after we leave. What are the mission parameters and how will we judge success?
At a minimum, one vision of success is a stable Afghanistan with a functioning government able to provide security to its population. It will likely take 15-20 years to get to this point.
What strategies would help to achieve this? Due to space limitations, I briefly outline the following:
Engaged military leadership. Those we ask to serve and lead troops in Afghanistan must fully understand counterinsurgency and align military strategy to the end-state vision articulated by the president. They must also understand where this fight fits into the larger national security strategy of the United States.
A coherent civil-military strategy. Many of our NATO allies (we must not forget that this is a NATO operation) have much more experience than do we in implementing these strategies. We have built our military to be a war-fighting force. Our troops excel at force-on-force and small-unit warfare, and they can help to provide a secure environment for the Afghan population – this is an important first step, but only one part of a broad civil-military strategy.
Other countries have forces and experience suited to additional areas of a successful civil-military strategy. These are based on linguistic skills and cultural and religious understanding of the population; capacity-building of political institutions, but especially training of the Afghan National Army as well as police forces, in which the French and British have a lot of experience (as do we); building and training a civil service and legal system based on merit rather than on tribal affiliations. Again, NATO and the United Nations can and should assist in these efforts, as well as non-governmental organizations, many of which have a wealth of experience.
A clearly-articulated and attainable mission. General McChrystal has advanced a military strategy, but this needs to be consistent with our overarching national security strategy. One area that I think we need to be cognizant of and integrate into our planning is that Afghanistan is not only a terrorist haven with a dysfunctional government, but it is also a narco-state. Anti-drug strategies need to be built into our mission parameters. Here, we can learn from our efforts in cooperation with the Columbians; we have roughly 20 years of experience that we can draw on to help combat the opium trade in Afghanistan.
Proper resources aligned to the attainment of mission goals. Without the equipment, manpower and financial resources, mission goals cannot be met.
Additional buy-in from our NATO allies. If President Obama outlines a clear and compelling vision and a realistic and properly-resourced strategy for reaching that vision, it is quite likely that our NATO allies will recommit themselves to the Afghan mission – perhaps other nations too. However, this is closely tied to…
Increased diplomatic efforts. We need to remind our NATO allies and like-minded countries that the United States of America is fully committed to success in Afghanistan. We need to also remind the international community, but especially Afghanistan’s neighbors, that there is more at stake than simply the people and government of Afghanistan. A destabilized Afghanistan could easily spill over and disrupt Pakistan, which has a nuclear arsenal. Afghanistan’s border countries are not as stable as they should be: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan all have tribal and inter-religious undercurrents that could be destabilized by a failed mission in Afghanistan. The Iranian leadership is looking increasingly shaky in terms of its hold on power. The entire region itself is an important crossroads for natural resources and trade, and this is clearly of interest both to China (which shares a border with Afghanistan) and India (which shares a border with Pakistan); we must find ways to tie these two countries, as well as Russia, to the mission in Afghanistan.
The United States cannot have a sustained, open-ended, on-the-ground military commitment to Afghanistan or indeed any country. However, pursuing strategies such as these would support and rally our troops in the field; strengthen the resolve of our allies and potential allies; show American leadership; allow us to come out on the other side with a clear victory for civilization; and, most importantly, help to ensure our long-term national security.
Unfortunately, the post 9-11 world didn’t unfold that way and we are now engaged on two foreign battlefields in military actions that most people – including many of those in the national security structure of the United States – view as disparate.
As a candidate for president, then-Senator Barak Obama said repeatedly that the fight in Afghanistan was the good war as compared to Iraq -- that it was a “war of necessity.” As president, Barak Obama stated in August of this year that our goals are to, “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.”
Upon assuming the presidency, Mr. Obama named a new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, charged with a strategic review and development of a go-forward plan. General McChrystal has made his recommendations to the president, yet it is only now that the debate on how to proceed has begun in the White House.
You would think that given his statements during the 2008 campaign and subsequent appointment of General McChrystal that President Obama would already have a fairly clear idea as to the broad course of action he would like to take in Afghanistan. If he believes what he has consistently said over the past year, that the fight in Afghanistan is a war of necessity and should be focused on the defeat of al-Qaeda, then the overriding consideration must be to support and strengthen Afghanistan in order to deny safe-havens to al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.
Muddling through with a strategy based upon political calculus rather than a military and diplomatic one would destroy the Obama presidency, and even more catastrophic, severely damage the long-term interests of the United States. One need only look at the Johnson presidency to see the parallels. The failure of President Johnson and his political advisors to let the military fight the war in Vietnam without the imposition of domestic political considerations led not only to our withdrawal and perceived defeat there, which was damaging enough, but it also led to an aggressive Soviet expansion in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.
Similarly, if we fail in Afghanistan the consequences will be far-reaching: al-Qaeda and extremist groups everywhere will know that America and the West are not serious and can be defeated if they are patient, cost us enough money and inflict enough pain; the al-Qaeda terrorist network and like-minded groups will again have a safe-haven in a lawless country; that these groups can continue unfettered in gaining immense amounts of cash to finance their operations through the opium trade; and, a destabilized Afghanistan could easily cause problems in neighboring countries.
Individuals and groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere are constantly judging the United States’ actions in the world based on their calculus, not our domestic political considerations. Failure, defeat or simply leaving where we have made a commitment makes them less likely to support or work with us in their country. These important potential internal allies will ask themselves, “Why risk everything if the Americans will leave when the going gets tough?”
So, what should we do? I agree with the President and his national security team’s assessment that the fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been ill-defined, under-resourced, under-funded and under-manned. I also agree with General McChrystal that we must implement a coherent and comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign built on the lessons learned in Iraq.
However, I would caution that Iraq and Afghanistan are inherently different and cannot be directly compared. Success in Afghanistan will be much harder than Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is backward, impoverished, tribal, mountainous, drug-ridden, decentralized, violent, has endemic corruption and a largely illiterate population. One important thing in common, though, is that the successful resolution of the challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan have ramifications for American foreign policy and our standing in the world long after we withdraw.
With this understanding as background, it is very important for President Obama to clearly and vividly articulate how he defines success in Afghanistan coupled with his vision of how Afghanistan will look after we leave. What are the mission parameters and how will we judge success?
At a minimum, one vision of success is a stable Afghanistan with a functioning government able to provide security to its population. It will likely take 15-20 years to get to this point.
What strategies would help to achieve this? Due to space limitations, I briefly outline the following:
Engaged military leadership. Those we ask to serve and lead troops in Afghanistan must fully understand counterinsurgency and align military strategy to the end-state vision articulated by the president. They must also understand where this fight fits into the larger national security strategy of the United States.
A coherent civil-military strategy. Many of our NATO allies (we must not forget that this is a NATO operation) have much more experience than do we in implementing these strategies. We have built our military to be a war-fighting force. Our troops excel at force-on-force and small-unit warfare, and they can help to provide a secure environment for the Afghan population – this is an important first step, but only one part of a broad civil-military strategy.
Other countries have forces and experience suited to additional areas of a successful civil-military strategy. These are based on linguistic skills and cultural and religious understanding of the population; capacity-building of political institutions, but especially training of the Afghan National Army as well as police forces, in which the French and British have a lot of experience (as do we); building and training a civil service and legal system based on merit rather than on tribal affiliations. Again, NATO and the United Nations can and should assist in these efforts, as well as non-governmental organizations, many of which have a wealth of experience.
A clearly-articulated and attainable mission. General McChrystal has advanced a military strategy, but this needs to be consistent with our overarching national security strategy. One area that I think we need to be cognizant of and integrate into our planning is that Afghanistan is not only a terrorist haven with a dysfunctional government, but it is also a narco-state. Anti-drug strategies need to be built into our mission parameters. Here, we can learn from our efforts in cooperation with the Columbians; we have roughly 20 years of experience that we can draw on to help combat the opium trade in Afghanistan.
Proper resources aligned to the attainment of mission goals. Without the equipment, manpower and financial resources, mission goals cannot be met.
Additional buy-in from our NATO allies. If President Obama outlines a clear and compelling vision and a realistic and properly-resourced strategy for reaching that vision, it is quite likely that our NATO allies will recommit themselves to the Afghan mission – perhaps other nations too. However, this is closely tied to…
Increased diplomatic efforts. We need to remind our NATO allies and like-minded countries that the United States of America is fully committed to success in Afghanistan. We need to also remind the international community, but especially Afghanistan’s neighbors, that there is more at stake than simply the people and government of Afghanistan. A destabilized Afghanistan could easily spill over and disrupt Pakistan, which has a nuclear arsenal. Afghanistan’s border countries are not as stable as they should be: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan all have tribal and inter-religious undercurrents that could be destabilized by a failed mission in Afghanistan. The Iranian leadership is looking increasingly shaky in terms of its hold on power. The entire region itself is an important crossroads for natural resources and trade, and this is clearly of interest both to China (which shares a border with Afghanistan) and India (which shares a border with Pakistan); we must find ways to tie these two countries, as well as Russia, to the mission in Afghanistan.
The United States cannot have a sustained, open-ended, on-the-ground military commitment to Afghanistan or indeed any country. However, pursuing strategies such as these would support and rally our troops in the field; strengthen the resolve of our allies and potential allies; show American leadership; allow us to come out on the other side with a clear victory for civilization; and, most importantly, help to ensure our long-term national security.
Insurance Bureaucrats v Government Bureaucrats
An oft-used argument on the political Left is that the United States is the only industrial country that doesn’t have nationalized healthcare. We have been debating this question since the Truman administration recommended a national healthcare system, so there must be a reason why it has gone on so long.
A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does not reveal an intrinsic right to healthcare (an aside: 17 September is Constitution Day; you might take the opportunity to carve 15-30 minutes out of your day and read it. For me it is an annual ritual).
Yet, regardless of which side of the issue you happen to find yourself, there seems to be consensus around a few things. First is the notion that no one should be denied medical care if they need it. A second is that healthcare costs too much. A third is that the system we have needs reform.
If these three broad areas can be agreed upon, why are we still arguing? Some would solve these three problems by imposing on all Americans a government-run healthcare system. I disagree and am in the good company of millions of Americans who are uncomfortable surrendering to government bureaucrats the power to make their life-and-death healthcare decisions.
Some opposed to a government-run healthcare system argue that the government cannot control costs or eliminate waste. Others believe that in an effort to control costs, unaccountable, faceless “death panels” will use a government-devised formula to decide who receives care and who does not. Still others say that we cannot give the government control over one-sixth of the national economy (the size of healthcare spending in the US) because it is too expansionist and will only serve to politicize healthcare decisions.
These are all compelling arguments when one considers that the recent spate of bailouts, stimulus and government takeovers have been poorly conceived, badly managed, added trillions of dollars to our national debt, and failed to make a real difference in the lives of the average American family. This is not a partisan statement: The bailouts began under the Bush administration in May of 2008.
Although these are powerful arguments against a government-run healthcare system, they are not sufficient. The central question is a much more fundamental and much more American one: It is a question of freedom, choice and personal liberty.
The reason that healthcare is not in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is not that we are a callous nation; it is because unlike all the other nations, industrial or not, ours was established on the principle that each person is sovereign. Each and every individual is endowed by his or her creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Among the family of nations we are alone in the belief that We the People, simply by the fact of our existence, are imbued with all sovereign rights and power, and that we give a portion of it to form government which is subservient to the individuals who consent to its formation. In every other country in the world it is the exact opposite: The government (or monarch, dictator, etc.) is sovereign, holds all the power and rights, and bestows some of these to individuals. This is an important distinction. It is the difference of being a free citizen or a subject.
Healthcare decisions are intensely personal and intimate, and should be made privately and in concert with one’s doctor and family. They are decisions that do not lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic, top-down mentality.
The fundamental questions you need to ask about the healthcare debate are these: Who owns your body: You or the government? Who has the right to make decisions that affect your body and your health? Are you a free citizen ready to exercise your freedom or are you a subject?
It is my belief that the reason the debate has gone on for 60 years is that some have forgotten the principles upon which our nation was founded. Those of us who advocate for a private healthcare system need to remind our fellow citizens of our unique heritage. Once we do, we can throw off the notion that government bureaucrats can tell us what kind of healthcare system we may have and we can then get on with the job of devising a private healthcare system befitting a free people.
[Note: In the 17 June Red and Blue column I offered for your consideration my prescription for what should be included in health reform legislation. To read it, please follow this link http://insideriowa.com/index.cfm?nodeID=18005&action=display&newsID=3665].
A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does not reveal an intrinsic right to healthcare (an aside: 17 September is Constitution Day; you might take the opportunity to carve 15-30 minutes out of your day and read it. For me it is an annual ritual).
Yet, regardless of which side of the issue you happen to find yourself, there seems to be consensus around a few things. First is the notion that no one should be denied medical care if they need it. A second is that healthcare costs too much. A third is that the system we have needs reform.
If these three broad areas can be agreed upon, why are we still arguing? Some would solve these three problems by imposing on all Americans a government-run healthcare system. I disagree and am in the good company of millions of Americans who are uncomfortable surrendering to government bureaucrats the power to make their life-and-death healthcare decisions.
Some opposed to a government-run healthcare system argue that the government cannot control costs or eliminate waste. Others believe that in an effort to control costs, unaccountable, faceless “death panels” will use a government-devised formula to decide who receives care and who does not. Still others say that we cannot give the government control over one-sixth of the national economy (the size of healthcare spending in the US) because it is too expansionist and will only serve to politicize healthcare decisions.
These are all compelling arguments when one considers that the recent spate of bailouts, stimulus and government takeovers have been poorly conceived, badly managed, added trillions of dollars to our national debt, and failed to make a real difference in the lives of the average American family. This is not a partisan statement: The bailouts began under the Bush administration in May of 2008.
Although these are powerful arguments against a government-run healthcare system, they are not sufficient. The central question is a much more fundamental and much more American one: It is a question of freedom, choice and personal liberty.
The reason that healthcare is not in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is not that we are a callous nation; it is because unlike all the other nations, industrial or not, ours was established on the principle that each person is sovereign. Each and every individual is endowed by his or her creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Among the family of nations we are alone in the belief that We the People, simply by the fact of our existence, are imbued with all sovereign rights and power, and that we give a portion of it to form government which is subservient to the individuals who consent to its formation. In every other country in the world it is the exact opposite: The government (or monarch, dictator, etc.) is sovereign, holds all the power and rights, and bestows some of these to individuals. This is an important distinction. It is the difference of being a free citizen or a subject.
Healthcare decisions are intensely personal and intimate, and should be made privately and in concert with one’s doctor and family. They are decisions that do not lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic, top-down mentality.
The fundamental questions you need to ask about the healthcare debate are these: Who owns your body: You or the government? Who has the right to make decisions that affect your body and your health? Are you a free citizen ready to exercise your freedom or are you a subject?
It is my belief that the reason the debate has gone on for 60 years is that some have forgotten the principles upon which our nation was founded. Those of us who advocate for a private healthcare system need to remind our fellow citizens of our unique heritage. Once we do, we can throw off the notion that government bureaucrats can tell us what kind of healthcare system we may have and we can then get on with the job of devising a private healthcare system befitting a free people.
[Note: In the 17 June Red and Blue column I offered for your consideration my prescription for what should be included in health reform legislation. To read it, please follow this link http://insideriowa.com/index.cfm?nodeID=18005&action=display&newsID=3665].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)