How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mahmoud?

This week, the United Nations held its annual ‘general assembly’ meeting in New York City and was again the scene of controversy with speeches from some of the world’s most oppressive dictators. While I do not understand why we allow these tyrants on our soil or continue to fund such an ineffective and corrupt organization such as the UN (at the expense of $13.3 billion taxpayer dollars per year, or 25% of the UN’s annual budget), I struggle with what our response should be to the world’s dictator’s and those living under such oppression.

President’s Bush and Obama had dramatically different approaches to this problem. The previous administration chose isolation, strong economic sanctions (when the other members of the UN would allow them, which was rare), and finally, military action in dealing with totalitarian regimes. The current administration has decided to engage in negotiations and diplomacy, along with a heavy reliance upon the United Nations to solve complex world problems. While history has shown that the latter is usually not very effective (see Chamberlin and Hitler’s Germany, President Clinton and North Korea, the UN and Iraq … twice), it is clear that the world has gotten much more dangerous in the last 8 years.

While I do not feel war should be our first, second, or third response, we have to acknowledge that there are those who just want to watch the world burn. It has been this way throughout human history and it is naive to think we can change their minds by simply “talking” with them. We tried negotiations with Saddam Hussein. Countless UN resolutions (75 total since the first Iraq war) were passed in an attempt to hold him accountable. All of this proved to be ineffective (especially with the UN “Oil for Food” scandal) and a decision by America and its allies were made to remove Saddam’s regime by force.

The Iraq war has been incredibly controversial and we have paid a huge price in blood and treasure liberating millions of people. We are an impatient country tending to want results right away. The battle of hearts and minds will take a generation to be realized … time will tell if our nation building and love of the Iraqi people will translate into a long-term ally. President Bush gambled heavily that the key to long-term peace was not in winning over a government, but in winning over its people.

But is there another way to change hearts and minds without war or ineffective government diplomacy? One that involves the church? The United Nations has identified Darfur, Sudan as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Since 2003, almost 400,000 people have died due to civil war, poverty, and disease. More than 2.5 million men, woman, and children are refugees and have little hope at a future. Ginghamsburg church in Tipp City, Ohio has embarked on an amazing mission and to date, have been able to raise almost $4 million in relief to the people of Darfur. The church has overseen and managed the program themselves, focusing on safe/clean water, agriculture, and child protection/education. While the international community (i.e., UN) sits around and talks about the crisis, the people of Ginghamsburg church are changing hearts and minds half a world away … without spending billions and firing a shot. Find out more at – http://ginghamsburg.org/sudancrisis/.

So how should we handle tyrants and oppressive regimes? Is there a one size fits all solution or does each situation require a different and unique approach?

Taking it to the Streets

On 09/12, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest of what they feel is an out of control, reckless, and out of touch government. The biggest of the tea party rallies took place in our nation’s capital where an estimated 75,000 people turned out in protest.

So what is at the heart of this widespread, growing sentiment? I think it can be traced back to three specific things:

First, people voted for change and they have not received that. President Obama promised fiscal responsibility, distance from special interests, and the elimination of corruption. Instead, we have record deficits, a seemingly co-op between the White House and GE as well as the Treasury and Goldman-Sachs. Additionally, we have scandal after scandal just eight months into a new presidency … several cabinet appointments involved in tax issues, Van Jones, the czar appointments, ACORN, etc. People are feeling duped.

Secondly, people are outraged at the behavior and tone of those in Congress. They are fed up with the elitism and being insulted by those who are supposed to be our “representatives”. Additionally, there is frustration and downright anger of the waste of taxpayer money. Here is a good example. Senator John Murtha (PA) was able to have $150M of taxpayer dollars earmarked for an airport in his home state, bearing his own name. Last  year, only 6,700 passengers utilized this facility, mainly Congressman Murtha and his staff travelling back and forth to Washington. By comparison, 37,000 passengers went through the Barlow Airport in Alaska … 320 NORTH of the Arctic Circle. A vote was held last week to defund the John Murtha Airport. The vote was defeated and the taxpayers will continue to pump $20 million annually into a gigantic boondoggle.

Finally, people are just flat out afraid. They are concerned about what this government is doing … the careless and unaccountable spending of money, deficits as far as the eye can see, plus the inevitable tax increases and inflation that await. Despite being talked down by their government, people continue to come out in protest … hoping that their voices will be loud enough that even those who have their fingers in their ears will eventually hear them.

Dr. Sam?

On Wednesday, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. His administration is proposing a $900 billion complete makeover of our system in order to insure all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay or the presence of a pre-existing condition. Two of the most controversial aspects of the plan include the number of uninsured as well as how to pay for such a massive entitlement program.

President Obama repeatedly refers to 50 million uninsured Americans. A Census bureau report in 2006 noted that 32 million of those are “temporarily” uninsured, likely people in-between jobs or health care providers. Those people were put in both the insured and uninsured categories. That means the actual number of uninsured is really around 18 million, and there is some debate as to whether 10 million illegal immigrants are part of that 18. Assuming they are, the end result would be turning things upside down for only 8 million people, or less than  3% of the country’s legal population.

As for cost, the President noted that “most” of the $900 billion price tag would be paid through the elimination of waste and gained efficiencies within the health care system. Medicare fraud estimates alone reach $30 billion per year. If the government knows there is waste and how much, how come they have not moved on that before now? It is simply not realistic to believe that an entity that has created and allowed waste and fraud is capable of eliminating it.

So what is the true problem with health care? If it is insurance, why is a sweeping overhaul to the entire system necessary? When you have a clog in one of your sinks, do you try and fix the clog or replace your entire house? We have 1,300 private insurance companies in this country yet we need a government-ran corporation to provide “choice and competition”? 1,300 and one choices will bring costs down?

Here are three solutions that many experts (i.e., those who are not career politicians or lawyers) are proposing – one, removing restrictions that prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We are in this mess largely because of bad regulation – special interest groups petitioning state lawmakers to limit choice. Eliminating those barriers would force companies in more regulated states to lower their prices or go out of business. 

The second would be to view health insurance like we do term-life insurance. Instead of buying it on a short-term, year-by-year basis, some are suggesting policies in which you purchase insurance on a 30 year contractual basis, where rates are fixed and not subject to “pre-existing conditions”.  

Finally, we must have tort reform. Doctors today have to pay upwards of six figures for medical liability insurance and spend an estimated 30% of their time dealing with insurance companies. Does that come out of their bottom line? No, it is passed onto the consumer.

Where do you stand on the issue? Should health care be reformed using private sector, marketplace solutions or handed over to the government?

Dear Leader

 

On September 8th, President Obama plans to address children across the country as they begin another school year. Not such a big deal, right? After all, both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush gave similar addresses.

The controversy resides in the recommended lesson plans provided by the White House. In it, students are encouraged to read books about Barack Obama, write letters about how Barack Obama has inspired them and how they can best serve Barack Obama. Teachers were encouraged to put up posters in their schools containing quotations made by President Obama on education.

All of this strikes me as being extremely creepy and very North Korean-like. I am trying to not make too much about this issue but when I read what the White House issued for grades Pre-K~6 (http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf) and 7~12 (http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf), the uneasiness I feel was even more substantiated. I counted 25 references to the President (10 in the 7~12 material,15 in the Pre-K) through only 6 pages of text, and that did not include the 10 personal references (he, him, his, etc) listed as well.  

Those on the right are very disturbed by this and those on the left do not see the big deal. While this is no surprise in a country so bitterly divided along political and ideological demographics, what if the right is right in its assertions that this reeks of political indoctrination? And why such strict control over the lesson plans anyway? Should the government be so entrenched in our daily lives that they now must control what is specifically taught in the classroom?  What role should our government and President play in the education of our children?