Continuity between Obama and Bush

George W. Bush: huge spending on war, tax cuts, an expensive medical entitlement plan (prescription drugs), a stimulus plan (2008 tax rebate of $152 billion) and bailouts.

Barrack Obama: continuation of war spending, tax cuts, an expensive medical entitlement plan (2009 Health Care reform), a stimulus plan (2009 stimulus of $787 billion) and bailouts.

Bottom line: More government and more debt.

I realize there are some important differences between Bush and Obama and between Republicans and Democrats. But when you stop and look at the bottom line these last eight years, they aren’t really all that different. The continuity between Bush and Obama on spending, which is a strong indicator of priorities, is pretty amazing. The irony is that the Tea Party protesters were silent when Bush engaged in “socialized medicine” while the anti-war folks on the left haven’t exactly been in the streets attacking Obama as a warmonger, even as he is poised to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

It just goes to show that much of our politics is about sheer partisanship, cheering for ones own party, or rather team instead of principals. The bigger problem, and one that transcends both parties and all elections, is that we as a society, and this includes both the left, right, moderates and independents, simply don’t recognize limits. This is why both the government and many American citizens aren’t living within their means financial. Debt is simply a symptom of a greater problem.

Perhaps our economy will recover soon. If it does, we may be able to outgrow our debt. But if it doesn’t, and if we continue to pile up debt as both Bush and now Obama have done, and their successors may continue to do, we may likely face decline as a nation. After all, debt and economic decline have brought down other empires in the past.

The problem with Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is back in the news with her recent book “Going Rogue.” I don’t plan to read her book, but from Rod Dreher’s review of it on NPR it doesn’t tell us anything new. While I found her intriguing when McCain first tapped her as his running mate, I soon came to the conclusion that she wasn’t ready for prime time so to speak and probably never will be. Apparently, polls have shown that the majority of Americans believe this is the case as well. I haven’t changed my opinion of her since then, and her decision to resign as governor of Alaska only reinforced my views of her. Furthermore, I do not think her continued presence in national politics is positive for conservatism. Here are three reasons why:

1) Liberals have unfairly attacked her family and personal life. It is obvious that they intensely dislike her not simply because of her politics, but because she is a religious women from “flyover country.” Irrespective of liberal prejudices against Palin, her family life is in full of drama. This isn’t likely to change, which means that the swirl of controversy that follows her everywhere will always be a distraction from much more important issues.

2) Palin loves to rail against elites and use more “folksy” language. Unfortunately, her speeches, interviews and writing have revealed that her communication skills don’t go beyond “folksy” and at times are riddled with grammatical errors. The way she speaks reminds me too much of some of the poor freshmen essays I have graded. Her interview with Katie Couric last year was embarrassingly bad. This is simply unacceptable for someone at the highest level of politics.

3) On the issues, Palin has shown that she is incapable of going beyond basic Republican talking points. This is true for both foreign policy and economics. She doesn’t appear to have thought through any important issue at length and certainly hasn’t questioned the assumptions of the neocons or the idea currently popular among many Republicans that tax cuts are always the answer to economic problems. This too is unacceptable and in my opinion alone renders her unfit for higher office.

Republicans are currently in the political wilderness. Hopefully they will use their time out of power to consider why they lost power and to reconsider their devotion to the neocons and their big spending ways under Bush. From what I’ve seen so far, I’m not convinced they have learned any lessons. They still have little credibility with me. If Palin continues as a popular figure in the GOP, and especially if she emerges as a serious contender in the 2012 presidential primaries, it will only be further evidence that the Republicans have learned nothing from the many errors of the Bush years.

Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part II The Libertarian Approach

In many respects, the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s marked the triumph of an individualistic, sentimentalistic view of marriage. Some feminists in this period alleged that the institution of marriage was part of patriarchical oppression. In addition, sexual libertines claimed that marriage was obsolete and that couples did not need “a piece of paper” to live together and love each other. Most people did not accept these radical claims. However, the dominant view of the period was that marriage was first and foremost about love and individual happiness. If an individual was unhappy in a marriage, increasingly the idea that the union should be dissolved and the individual should seek another relationship that made them “happy” was accepted.

In all of this, the interests of children took a backseat to the individual happiness and felt needs of their parents. The idea that an unhappy couple should fight to work things out or even stay together for the sake of the children was seen as outmoded and thus was increasingly rejected. As social attitudes about marriage changed, so too did the state laws, which allowed for no-fault divorce. The result was a sharp rise in the divorce rate, pitting men against women in bitter court cases over property, alimony and child custody. Predictably, all sides, men, women and children suffered. Unsurprisingly, the new attitudes about marriage and sex led to an increase in out of wedlock births. Today, they are quite common, especially among the poor, which only fuels a cycle of poverty. And while the divorce rate has somewhat stabilized, divorce has scarred many people and made them wary of marriage, which in part has resulted in the rise of couples not bothering with marriage and living together without being married, either as a trial run to marriage or in lieu of it. Because divorce is so common and the financial and emotional risks of divorce are so great, to an extent who can blame couples for living together without being married? Unless one has strong religious convictions against pre-marital cohabitation, why not the way things are these days?

Clearly our society has greatly changed in the last 40-50 years. The state has already greatly changed its approach to marriage as most states have allowed no fault divorce. Should it further change its approach? Should it allow “gay marriages” as a few states now do? Or should the state get out of the marriage business altogether?

I would argue that society and the state’s view of marriage is in flux at the moment. At this juncture, there are three possible courses for the state, or rather barring the federal government once again trampling on states' rights, states to take in the future with respect to marriage. The first course is to return to the idea that marriage is primarily an institution for the bearing and raising of children. This would mean ending no-fault divorce laws and only allowing divorce in very limited circumstances such as abuse, abandonment or adultery. It would probably involve state-required or sponsored counseling for couples in troubled marriages, especially couples with children. It would also mean that “gay marriages” or any other alternative marriages would be seen as a farce and out of the question.

Frankly, I’m not sure if this first approach is even possible in our society today. The second course, which would best be described as the Libertarian approach, would entail the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. The term “marriage” has strong religious connotations for many people. As the state should not be involved in religious matters, it should no longer use the term “marriage.” It should find another term such as “civil union” to cover the legal aspects currently covered under state-sanctioned marriages such as shared property, child custody (which should always favor the biological parents first), benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance and so on. In the Libertarian approach, the state would grant civil unions to any and all consenting adult who desire them. Consenting adults would be free to dissolve their civil union if they desire, much like divorce today. Religious bodies would still be free to conduct weddings and recognize marriages as they see fit. And with the state out of the marriage business, “marriage” would become strictly a religious or cultural matter for individuals, their faith communities and their families and friends.

The Libertarian approach would have the state grant civil unions to pretty much any type of arrangement consenting adults might form. The phrase “consenting adult” is always the operative one as it is self-evident that children and non-consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into legally binding relationships. Civil unions would be allowed for all kinds of relationships, including heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, plural marriages of various kinds, incestuous relationships and even non-sexual relationships such as friends or roommates living together. The state’s concern here would not be to impose any kind of value-judgment on relationships. Rather, the idea is to allow consenting adults to live their lives as they see fit and manage their property and benefits according to their wishes. This does entail risks as the relationships they enter could dissolve in the future, with the negative financial consequences that we see with divorce today.

There is a third option as well. This seems to be the approach of most left-liberals today. This would be for the state to continue to issue marriage licenses as it already does, but to issue them to same-sex couples as well. The justification for same-sex or “gay marriage” is that marriage is a right and that it is a violation of the rights of homosexuals not to allow them to marry. The argument generally goes that the state needs to ensure “marriage equality” and that “loving, consenting adults” should not be denied the right to marry.

I am very skeptical of this third approach. In my experience, those who take it are adamantly against polygamy and other alternative forms of unions, with the exception of same-sex unions. The reasons they give for this are entirely bogus. For example, they argue that polygamous relations would be complicated from a legal standpoint, they would involve “unequal” relations between men and women and would led to an imbalance in the ratio between men and women. Yet if marriage is a “right” there is no reason to deny someone there “rights” because it would be legally complicated. And who are they to impose their liberal values about gender equality on consenting men and women? Certainly many well-educated women don’t agree with them. They have no right to force their beliefs on gender equality on others. Also, if they are so interested in the ratio between men in women in society, they would probably be against same-sex marriages as well.

It is incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical for liberals to call for same-sex marriage on the basis of "marriage equality" and oppose polygamy or plural unions. It is also worth noting that liberals not only see homosexual behavior as normal and moral, but have repeatedly attempted to label those who question this idea as “bigots” who should be treated in a similar manner as racists are today. Because of their intolerance towards religious conservatives and inability to see that the views of religious conservatives on sexuality are rooted in their faith as opposed to “bigotry” or “hatred” the left is not to be trusted on this matter. They certainly cannot be trusted to respect the civil and religious liberties of those they dislike, especially religious conservatives. I suspect liberals want to use same-sex marriage as a tool to impose their values on homosexuality and gender on the rest of society. This means beating down any voices of dissent and using "gay marriage" to further legitimize homosexuality.

I fail to see how this is any different from the “intolerant fundamentalists” who make up the so-called “religious right” that liberals love to complain about and demonize. But liberals have make up their mind that homosexuality is a good thing and can’t seem to understand that reasonable people who aren’t motivated by hate or bigotry could possibly disagree with them. This is just another example of how parochial, narrow-minded, intolerant and self-righteous some liberals are. I expect that liberals will continue to attempt to push their approach on marriage on society in the next few decades. It is highly likely, however, that full or partial success on their part in the political arena, or more likely than not in the courts, will simply make the “culture wars” between liberals and conservatives more bitter and protracted than they already are today. Thus, I oppose this third approach and see it as the most dangerous to our society, republic and civil liberties. I don’t doubt for a minute that “gay marriage” as pushed by liberals could well lead to the curtailing of religious liberty, especially as religious conservatives would be labeled as “discriminating against gays” or as engaging in “hate speech” or some such nonsense. I don't put it past liberals to blatantly violate the First Amendment in the name of “gay rights.”

What then should be done? I believe the first approach I outline would be the best for society. It would also be helpful if orthodox churches and Christians took marriage much more seriously. This would mean more serious efforts to strengthen marriages and families and to fight divorce and the easy divorce culture we have today. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to accept divorce as normal. We wouldn’t be having any discussion about “gay marriage” if heterosexuals in general and Christian heterosexuals specifically haven't failed so badly in marriage these last 40-50 years. Part of facing the problem is for orthodox Christians to first look in the mirror and make changes of their own.

While the first approach is the best one, I am skeptical that it is politically, culturally or socially possible. As has been said, politics is the art of the possible, and true conservatives must be realistic about what can be accomplished through politics. If this is the case, the Libertarian approach is the best. Consequently, I grudgingly favor it. If the state isn’t going to impose the right values, it should seek to impose none at all, allow complete religious freedom on marriage and sexuality, and allow consenting adults to do whatever they want with their relationships and property. Unfortunately, I doubt many liberals or many conservatives for that matter would go for the Libertarian approach. This is why we are probably in for a knock down drag out over the definition of marriage and the state’s role in marriage in the coming years. The Libertarian approach would probably work best to defuse further "culture wars." However, speaking of realism in politics, defusing said wars may be too difficult from the outset, meaning a long cultural and political fight is in order.

None of this will be pretty, and although I won’t be surprised if we end up with “gay marriage” in all 50 states, there is no guarantee that the left will “win” or even if they do that legal victory will give liberals the results they ultimately desire, namely the normalization of homosexuality and "gay marriage." After all, legal victory could be a Pyrrhic victory. As an institution, civic marriage has been continued devalued since the 1960s and if and when the get it could end up as a worthless prize for gay activists. Also, there is no guarantee that “gay marriage” will even work or that gays won’t divorce at high rates. As with all the changes we have seen since the 1960s, the sure losers in all of this will be children. But hey, in our individualistic, selfish and materialistic culture, it’s the “happiness” of adults that really should matter, right? So who cares about them?

Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part I Marriage and Children

America has been having a debate over marriage and “gay marriage” for a number of years now. No doubt this debate will continue for a number of years to come. However, to date, and the recent vote in Maine confirmed this, no state, including states that are hardly hotbeds of conservatism such as California and Maine have not approved “gay marriage” through a referendum. The states that do have it have almost always ended up with it through a court order. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with court ordered “gay marriages” in all fifty states, though as with abortion this is likely to be a source of great controversy and division.

Of course, from the perspective of basic, orthodox Christianity there is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” While homosexuals should not be mistreated or treated without mercy or told there is no forgiveness for their sins, homosexual actions are sinful and the notion that people of the same sex can be married is a theological absurdity. Any attempts to say otherwise, which some liberals unconvincingly do, fly in the face of the clear teachings of Scripture. It should also be noted that Scripture also teaches against lust, adultery and fornication. And at best the Bible only allows divorce, and especially divorce and remarriage in very limited circumstances. Homosexual acts are sinful, but in our society heterosexuals, including many who are Christians or claim to be Christians, have engaged in plenty of sexual sin on their own. There is no use throwing too many stones at gays in a society that is a glass house so to speak.

Certainly the American Constitution allows for the free exercise of religion, which means that religious bodies have the right to define marriage within their communities however they wish. But our laws, including our marriage laws aren’t based on religion in general and Christianity specifically. So what should be the basis of state-sanctioned marriages? Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place? What interest does the state have in marriage?

First, it is worth pointing out that the state has never made “love” a condition of obtaining a marriage license. Of course most people who desire said licenses do claim to love each other and it is widely recognized that love and happiness is important for a married couple. At any rate, the state has no vested interest (and likely does not have the ability) in regulating people’s love lives or promoting romance within a relationship or making it a precondition for a marriage license. Adults will figure this out one way or the other on their own. On the other hand, the state has a great interest in the welfare of children. And numerous studies have shown that children are better off physically, psychologically, educationally, socially and economically when they are raised by two parents, particularly their biological parents. There are always exceptions to this, such as cases of extreme dysfunctional, neglect or abuse. But as a rule, children are better off with their parents. Studies show that children who grow up with both parents do better in school, are less likely to grow up in poverty, to engage in drug use, crime or risky sexual activities. As children are so vulnerable and are the future of the nation, it is only reasonable for the state to show some concern for their well-being.

With this in mind, the state has an interest in granting marriage licenses to consenting heterosexual couples who seek them. These marriage licenses entitle those who obtain them to special rights, privileges, and responsibilities. However, these aren’t given arbitrarily, but because biologically heterosexual couples are the ones who bring children into the world and are the best ones suited to raise them. Certainly, there are exceptions to this. Some heterosexual couples are infertile or too old to have children while others choose not to have any children at all. Nonetheless, all heterosexuals have the correct biologically equipment so to speak to have children and the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact end up having children. In addition, the state doesn’t make laws based on exceptions, but on the general rule. For example, it is entirely reasonable for the state to require all automobile owners to have a valid drivers’ license and current auto insurance even if a few people who own cars park them in a garage and never take them on the road for use.

Homosexual couples are biologically different from heterosexual couples. In all cases, homosexual couples are biologically incapable of having children together. Sure, they can adopt children or one member of the couple can conceive a child through artificial means. But these methods all involve third parties, which make them different from the way most heterosexual couples have and raise children. As part of this, biologically speaking, children cannot have two fathers or two mothers. And children, even at a young age know this. Thus there is always something artificial or unnatural about a homosexual couple raising a child.

Remember that the state’s main interest with marriage should be as an institution to raise children. If this is the case, the state has no reason to extend marriage to homosexual couples. Homosexual relations are of no consequence to the state, which should approach them with as much indifference as it does the relationship between roommates, which are not eligible for any package of special privileges or rights. This isn’t because of religious objections to homosexuality. Rather, because of basic biology. Since the advent of no-fault divorce, however, the state and society in general have moved away from the idea that marriage is primarily an institution designed for the bearing and raising of children. Instead, the primary, if not nearly the exclusive focus has increasingly become the personal happiness of the couple. If marriage is mainly a “sentimental” matter and is a public confirmation that a couple loves each other and thus seeks to share property and benefits, what then should be the criteria for the state to grant marriage licenses? I will attempt to address this in my next post.

The debate over health care

The current health care debate is a real mess. I suspect that whatever plan the Democrats end up pushing through will cost much more than they claim. Moreover, it won't likely do much to solve many of the real problems in this nation with health care such as rising cost and lack of real choice for individuals. The Democrats may end up covering more people and eliminating some of the insurance industries more dubious use of things such as pre-existing conditions. However, their plans will likely raise premiums and reduce coverage for those who already have insurance. Worse yet, once they commit the federal government to what is in effect an entitlement expansion, there is little chance it will be cut back as entitlements rarely if ever are cut back. This means bigger government and a larger budget deficit-a very dangerous proposition for a government that already spends nearly 10% of its budget on the INTEREST of its debt.

As usual, the Republicans don't seem to have any genuine alternatives to this, though at least almost all Republicans in Congress won't support the Democrats. If I was in charge, here are some of the changes I would make:

1) Employment needs to be disconnected from health insurance. This is one of the biggest problems today and neither side seems to want to discuss it. Employers should stop offer health insurance and should simply pay workers more so they can go buy it for themselves on the free market. At the moment, one of the biggest problems is that health insurance companies can be jerks. But the insurance companies know good and well that people can't drop their health insurance as they could their auto insurance because they get it through their employer. If they dropped their employers' insurance, they would in affect be turning down hundreds of dollars each month in pay from their employer and would be forced to buy insurance at a higher rate on their own, something most people simply can't afford to do. The system we have now isn't capitalism. It is a quasi-monopolistic system. Real competition, which along with disconnecting employment with insurance coverage would also including allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines, would go a long way to changing things.

2) The federal government should allow everyone to have a tax-free health savings account as some companies currently have. Individuals should be allowed to contribute as much as they want each year and deduct it from their taxes. They should also be allowed to roll over what they don't use one year to their account for the next year (though for taxes they should only be allowed to deduct contributions made for each year). Individuals could use their savings accounts to purchase health insurance and pay for out of pocket expenses. This would give people a great deal of freedom to manage their own affairs.

3) Everyone should be required to purchase some form of "emergency" health insurance that covers things such as cancer or terrible accidents. It is outrageous that people go bankrupt in this country because of medical bills. There really should be insurance to prevent this. Those who are too poor to pay for this should be given a subside to buy their own insurance or receive it through Medicare or Medcaid.

4) The way we pay doctors needs to change. At the moment, they are paid for all the tests and procedures they do. This needs to be changed to how things work in other countries such as Britain where doctors are paid (and even given bonuses) for results, i.e. getting patients well instead of for procedures. Doctors should be well compensated. But they need to be paid for results, not simply having expensive tests and procedures done.

5) We need to stress wellness and prevention more. Is it any wonder that we have such high health care expenses in this country with our obesity rates and the poor diet and exercise that causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?

Much of the above is similar to the system in Switzerland, which is cheaper, has universal coverage and gives individuals more choice over their health decisions than is currently the case in America with health insurance companies and their quasi-monopolistic practices or if the government took more control over the health care system, especially if we went to a single payer system. Americans don't like answering to a health insurance bureaucrat. But answering to a government bureaucrat wouldn't be any better. The choices we have in America between the left and right today are false choices.

I believe many of the above ideas make sense. Which of course is why they probably won't be adopted.

Back again, I hope

It's obvious that I haven't posted on this blog in quite so time. I hope to begin posting again more regularly now. Still, it is my blog, so I will post as infrequently or as infrequently as I see fit.

Why the global warning debate doesn't matter

In recent years the media has discussed global warming quite a bit. It has become an important issue for the left, which holds that the “carbon footprint” that humans are leaving on this planet could well melt the icecaps, cause the oceans to rise, and totally disrupt life on earth as we know it. Many on the right on the other hand sees this as fear-mongering and believes that global warning is a hoax concocted by blowhards such as Al Gore. Further, the right views government efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will cost businesses billions and hamstring the American economy. Obviously, both sides have ideological reasons for their positions and those on the extreme left and the extreme right can be pretty dogmatic about this issue.

It appears that many scientists do believe that global warming is caused by human activity. But it also seems that a substantial and perhaps even growing number of scientists dispute this claim. The global warming debate seems important. Certainly the potential consequences of getting this issue wrong either way are pretty bad. In the end, however, I just don’t think this debate is all that important. Why not? Mainly because I don’t think people are going to change their ways all that much, especially Americans. I heard not too long ago on NPR that as individuals liberals don’t act any differently than conservatives when it comes to the environment. That seems about right from my personal experiences. I’ve definitely known liberal colleagues who drive more and drive less fuel efficient vehicles than do I.

As a nation, we may well adopt lifestyles that consume less fossil fuels in general and oil specifically. But this will be due to market forces, namely the rising cost of oil and other fuel. Of course, it would also improve our long-term national security if we moved away from oil as well. One thing is for sure, we aren’t about to give up our cars, electricity, and other modern conveniences, especially for something as abstract to the average person as global warming.
Industry and agriculture, which is also heavily dependent on fuel isn’t about to do this either. The vast majority of Americans aren’t remotely interested in living more like the Amish. We prize the conveniences of our live above almost everything else. This attitude isn't a good thing and is also why things such as abortion are so difficult to fight. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life and is a monstrous evil. Sadly, for many Americans it is a convenience that helps give them the “freedom” to live materialistic and sexually unethical lifestyles.

Americans aren’t about to give up their cars and other gadgets. If the government tries to reduce carbon emissions in a manner that hinders access to these modern conveniences, it will face an outcry from the public. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t say much about the science of climate change one way or the other. But I hope anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. If it isn’t, we’re screwed because there is no way that Americans, much less the rest of the world will every change their lives in a way that would stop it. That in the end is why the debate over global warming just doesn’t matter. It’s a lot of talk on an issue where apart from market forces and technological innovation we just aren’t going to make in substantial changes.