A Fine Mess

In the complicated, kaliedoscopic Middle East, it is easy to make a misstep which carries unintended consequences.  The war in Iraq, for instance, appeared to be a straightforward proposition: a brutal dictator who routinely threatened our interests, violated terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War of 1990-91, and looked like he was marching down the path of acquiring WMD in a post 9/11 world.  We were faced with a threat, had a strategic interest, and the backing of our closest ally, Great Britain.  It turned out to be a messy, costly, and complicated affair, and while we removed one dictator, we enabled another tyrannical regime, Iran, to expand its influence.

Fast forward nearly a decade and we have yet another showdown with another brutal secular dictator.  And we are on the brink of pulling the trigger on yet another unforeseen set of consequences, and this time with even thinner support.  Yes, the Assad regime is brutally attempting to hold on to power.  Yes, he used WMD on his own people.  Yes, the world needs to understand that the use of WMD cannot go unpunished.  But I submit that the Obama administration has now maneuvered itself into a position where a good decision is no longer available.

Let's look at where the game board sits.  We have no UN Security Council Resolution, and no NATO support.  Russia (remember the "reset"?) is obstructing us and our closest historical ally, Great Britain has said nyet.  For all the self righteous chest thumping of Obama during his campaign against Bush, he has placed us in a position of being more out there alone on an issue than Bush ever was.  Obama finally caved last week and sought Congressional support, which he didn't bother to do before his infamous "lead from behind" intervention in Libya.  Now, there is even controversy over the death toll in the Syrian WMD attack, with independent groups claiming that the Obama administration is grossly inflating the number.

Obama failed to lead early in the Syrian civil war, before the rebels turned jihadist.  Now, as in Egypt, there are no good guys to choose from.  Do you really want to weaken the Assad regime so that Syria turns into a Muslim extremist led state (assuming Mr. Holder lets us use the term "Muslim extremist").  Do we want to risk strengthening Assad by launching a pinprick limited attack that he quickly rebounds from?  What if Syria, Iran, or Hezbollah attacks Israel?  What if Syria attacks us here?

It is hard not to feel a little schadenfreude over this.  The self righteous Obama administration has only the support of France (or as one pundit put it, the "coalition of the invisible").  Syria has not directly threatened us or our allies.  A limited attack will have no appreciable effect.  A larger attack risks toppling Assad and paving the way for the jihadists.  In other words, there are no good decisions on the table.

This box is a direct result of a president with limited experience and no leadership skills.  The Syrian situation was foreseeable and even predictable.  But Obama failed to build and cultivate close strategic alliances.  He made a "red line" pronouncement that he is now stuck with.  Then, he made matters worse by stopping in midflight to get Congressional approval.  Building a coalition with the international community and getting Congressional support are crucial.

And, as a side note, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, is on record saying that Assad is a reformer.  On top of the Benghazi debacle, this wrongheaded assertion should derail her candidacy.  But the MSM refuses to hold her accountable.

Syria.  Libya.  Iraq.  Iran.  Egypt.  Is there any place that the Obama foreign policy is winning?

Governments and Women

Rather than write about the sequester (which is much ado about not much), I thought I'd comment on some items that came up over the past couple of weeks on how governments treat women, and how they manage to muck things up.

Let's start with Iran.   It turns out that even the mullahs are figuring out that a key to prosperity is population growth (contrary to the claims of the eco-statists like Paul Ehrlich).  With an aging population, you need young, productive workers to support us aging folks in their dotage and Iran is beginning to suffer the same demographic issues that are plaguing Japan, Russia, and Europe.

As someone with some background in economics, I believe that people do respond to financial incentives.  And I applaud the mullahs in this regard.  They apparently have set up a series of financial incentives to induce women to have more babies, including generous time off, and a gold coin upon the birth of a child.  Maybe the mullahs are catching on a bit.

I'm not sure financial incentives alone will be sufficient to do the trick, however.  Iranian women are, in my view, among the most stunning in the world, with their dark brown eyes and hair and beautiful olive skin.  Yet, the mullahs keep them wrapped up in what amounts to black plastic hefty bags and make their brothers accompany them on trips outside their homes.  Somebody needs the explain to the mullahs what actually causes babies and that these measures are a structural impediment to, ahem, spontaneous baby generation.  If you really want more babies, boys, loosen your collars a bit.   Maybe start by introducing a more fashionable burka (see above).

But not to be outdone, public policy choices here in the good old USA toward women also appear to be somewhat schizophrenic.  Our own government is hell bent on providing women with free birth control (with the indomitable Sandra Fluke as its leading advocate), and we have heard the hew and cry of the Republican War on Women.

But while the liberals want government to provide free birth control to women, it is simultaneously launching a campaign to curtail the right of a woman to possess and carry a firearm for self protection.  Intruders and rapists will have less to fear from women if the Left is able to curtail 2nd Amendment rights.  Taken together, these policies on birth control and guns make a powerful statement about what our government intends to permit women to be empowered to do.

Oh, and by the way, it turns out that spousal coverage is being dropped by many companies because of Obamacare mandates.  So Obama's claim that "if you like your coverage, you can keep it," apparently will not be true for many women covered on their husband's policies.

Absurd government policies toward women appear to be something we have in common with Iran.  If women are to be truly free, independent, and fully empowered, the mullahs and the American Left don't quite get it yet.

Miscellany

I have to start off this week's post by patting myself on the back for correctly calling this year's Grammy winner for the second year in a row.  Mumford & Sons, a terrific new band that has reignited a genre took the honors with its album, Babel.

My second correct judgment came in my assessment that the correct analysis of Washington DC is to view DC as an alcoholic or drug abuser in denial.  Sure enough, Nancy Pelosi made my case for me by arguing that "It's almost a false argument that Washington has a spending problem?"   Huh?   Every hear that kind of talk from an alcoholic?   "I don't have a drinking problem," they proudly announce.  Yeah, well, this is the third time this month you left your car parked your car up on the lawn.

I won't bore you with a full critique of the State of the Union speech.  It contained its expected litany of Big Government solutions to all our problems and conveniently forgot to mention that we don't have anything left on our tab for Big Government solutions.

But I have to pick out a couple of egregious items.

First is Obama's newfound support of manufacturing.  And he proposes to help manufacturers by creating manufacturing hubs (yet another project from the Bureau of Central Planning).  But before we launch off on that escapade, let's take stock of what the Obama Administration has done for manufacturers so far.  He has raised taxes, particularly on Sub-S corporations.  He has inflicted Obamacare on them.  The EPA has unleashed a torrent of new rules on them.  His energy policies (and fiscal policies) have increased energy costs for them.  The Department of Labor (with its unconstitutionally appointed members) has empowered unions, with the most outrageous example of its attack on Boeing for attempting to open a plant in nonunion South Carolina.   Dodd Frank has incrementally made financing more difficult.  I have a simpler solution than manufacturing hubs.  How about just stop inflicting the tax and regulatory torture?

The second knee slapper was Obama's criticism of "sequestration."  True, it is a blunt instrument and arises out of a complete lack of discipline and ability to responsibly budget.  But President Obama forgets that sequestration was HIS idea.  The saner and more responsible approach was Bowles-Simpson, which he kicked to the curb.

I could go on, but I won't.  The true nature of the severity of the division in our politics became very apparent to me on Tuesday night.  I am fortunate to have some very bright and very well educated friends on both ends of the political spectrum.  During the State of the Union, emails clogged my inbox.   My liberal friends are still swooning over the Obama mystique.  "Visionary," "intellectually substantive," "strong agenda," were some of the comments I received.  My conservative friends had things to say like, "every time he speaks, I throw up a little in my mouth," or "is utterly contemptuous of the restraints the Constitution places on him."  It's interesting that equally educated people can see things in such markedly different ways.

Sadly, however, the opposition is in a shambles.  I note that two groups of which I am a member- the Republican Party and the Catholic Church are in complete disarray.   Both are sorely lacking in young, vibrant, competent leadership.  There is hope for the Republicans in Marco Rubio.   We'll see about the Catholic Church.  I am hoping they will use this transition to truly revitalize the Vatican.

You'll Never Hear About It

I have a bold prediction.

The Republicans lost in '08 to Barack Obama, in part because of the war in Iraq.  We all know the controversy and arguments around the decision to oust Saddam Hussein, and the failure to adequately plan for a post-Hussein Iraq undoubtedly cost American lives.

Ultimately, however, I believe that Barack Obama's domestic policies will ultimately lead to more premature American deaths than George Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

These deaths will arise out of at least two areas.  First, there will be deaths that arise out of  Obamacare.  I have been reading more about the U.K.'s experience with nationalized healthcare.  While  we have not gone that route yet (the true liberals would like to take us there), we have taken the first step, and President Obama's former head of Medicare, Donald Berwick, famously announced that the U.S. health system was "trapped in the darkness of private enterprise."  This gives you a hint of where they ultimately would like to take us.  Great Britain's death rate after major surgeries is four times what it is here.  And a recent study showed that care was so poor at hospitals administered out of the mid Staffordshire trust that hundreds have died.  The "death pathways" (yes, Sarah Palin was right to be concerned) misdiagnose people regularly leading to even more deaths.

It is true that we aren't on the UK system yet, but the law of supply and demand dictates that putting more people in the system without increasing the number of doctors and facilities will increase treatment delay, and some number of delays will have fatal consequences.  Doctors here at Mt. Sinai (which serves mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients) are deeply concerned over whether that hospital will be able to remain open after Obamacare reimbursement levels are cut.  Some of those people will defer treatment.

So much for compassion.

The other  policy decision that  will lead to more American deaths is in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.  CAFE standards are known to cause at least 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries per year, and that number has been confirmed by several independent sources, including the National Academy of Sciences and the NHTSA.  This is simple physics.  To meet the mileage requirements, cars must be made out of lighter materials.  These materials do not stand up as well in high speed collisions.  President Obama recently mandated that these standards be gradually raised to 54.5 MPG by 2025.  Hundreds more highway deaths will result, even though CAFE standards have not shown to be effective in lowering fuel consumption.

You will never hear about it.  You will never read about it.  It will be dark, insidious and silent.  But I predict that the cumulative effect of Obama's domestic policies on mortality in just these two areas over time will eclipse American deaths resulting from the invasion of Iraq.

Bet on it.

Late to the Party

This will not surprise anyone that really knows me, but once again, I was late catching a wave.  I spent much of Super Bowl weekend catching up (or really starting up) the immensely popular PBS series, Downton Abbey, which follows the British aristocratic Crawley family during the early part of the 20th century.  I now understand the show's popularity.  It is well written, well-acted, and excellently portrays British class structure during that time.  I'm really not a TV watcher, although I did get hooked on Friday Night Lights, which I thought was exceptionally well done.  I am similarly hooked on Downton Abbey, although for different reasons.  I was never highbrow enough to be a regular Masterpiece Theatre watcher.  But this is different.  It contains the FNL character development in a Masterpiece Theatre setting.

I am fascinated by the rigidity of British class structure, where stratification occurs, is layered and is important even within classes.

One aspect of the series jumped out at me, and that is the disdain for work.  In an early episode, a family member that is in line to be an heir is a practicing lawyer.  He is looked down upon for "Gentlemen don't work."  Similarly, his mother is held in contempt because she wished to do volunteer work at a hospital.  What was most esteemed was to be part of the moneyed leisure class.

I find it an interesting contrast to early 21st liberal thought in America.   In contrast to early 20th century British society, the vast majority of the top 10-20% of earners in America work like dogs.  Even the reviled 1%, the Wall Streeters, business owners, lawyers, doctors and the entrepreneurial class work constantly.  Many forego vacations and routinely put in 16 hour workdays, and are extremely devoted to their craft.  And while they do so, the bottom 20-25% work little at all or are employed by The State, which rarely demands that level of devotion.

Perhaps a century ago in Great Britain, it was true that "Gentlemen don't work," and the lower classes worked hard for little and little hope for advancement.  But in 21st century America, gentlemen and ladies (i.e. the top 10%) work endlessly and tirelessly and then are reviled by our President for doing so and not "paying their fair share,"  although they pay 70% of the taxes.

My, how times have changed.

Who Really Pays?

Just as I predicted, no sooner did we agree to feed the insatiable beast of government, Democrats were clamoring for more.  Nancy Pelosi is already casting her lustful eyes on even more tax increases, and President Obama immediately asserted that any spending cuts would necessarily be accompanied by more taxes.

See? The only way to truly understand Washington is through the addiction model.  We know that Obama said to John Boehner in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff, "we do not have a spending problem."  How many of us have seen the friend or relative reeling and reeking of gin assert, "I don't have a drinking problem," or "I can quit anytime I want."  Right.

Washington has an uncontrollable spending addiction.  It will never stop until we stop enabling it.  And right now, most of the Republicans are enablers (mostly because many of them secretly like to spend other peoples' money, too).  Kudos to the few brave and principled souls like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio that had the courage to say no.  Because this deal will cost a lot, will not solve the debt and deficit problem, and the Big Government crowd has vowed to come back for more.

The Democrats, led by Obama, asserted that this tax increase was targeted at "the rich" who need to pay "just a little bit more."  But who really bears the brunt of this?  To be sure, some of it will be borne by the rich.  But the real consequences are more insidious.  You see, in the real world, people do budgets.  People work hard and take risks to achieve a certain lifestyle and a certain level of success.   And most business people have a certain standard of living that drives and motivates them, which is funded by after tax cash.

So, let me give you a few anecdotes of conversations I have had recently with actual people that run professional service firms.  Both have worked long and hard to build successful businesses.

One told me flat out that he was going to lay off at least one, maybe two people to make up the difference.  Both of these people were middling employees anyway, but the tax burden was enough to  make the decision to let them go more urgent.  This person told me, "I'm just not going to take the hit.  I've worked too hard for too long."

A second person, who is a fastidious personal financial planner, and budgets and tracks his family expenses monthly and who is VERY GENEROUS with his charitable contributions, told me, "At the end of the month, the spreadsheet has to balance.  The extra tax will come out of my charity."  So there you have it.  Government will now get what a private charity would otherwise get.

A third person, who runs a business at the edge of the Obamacare requirements has already laid people off to stay under the employee limit, and is working to outsource functions they would otherwise do themselves.  So Obamacare is incenting them NOT TO GROW.

I know these are just anecdotes, but when you get enough anecdotes, we call that data.  The Big Government crowd can crow all they wish about "the rich" paying their fair share.  But when you hit them with new taxes the parties that actually feel the pain are the middle class.  It's the laid off employee, the charity that will have to do with less, and it's the people that don't get hired because the business has been motivated to shrink.

Why Republicans can't make this argument is beyond me.  Until they can, Big Government will take more and more.  It doesn't think it has a spending problem.

Pantsed

In this iconic picture of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football, can anyone guess what role John Boehner played last week?  In an incredible feat of incompetent negotiating, Boehner conceded a two decade Republican position on taxes and got NOTHING in return.

As I asserted in my prior post on the fiscal cliff, to understand the Statists, you need to view it through the addiction model.  Addicts and alcoholics will promise ANYTHING to get their next fix.  Similarly progressives will made all sorts of pledges on FUTURE spending cuts in order to get their fix (increased taxes) TODAY.  The taxes are immediate.  The cuts....well, they never quite get there.  They did it to Reagan.  They did it to Bush 41.

You knew it was going to end badly for conservatives when Boehner after the election stated, "Well, we're only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government."  Later, he adopted the language of Left and said that taxes would have to go up on "the rich."  Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid making such statements at the outset?  Nonsense.  The correct position would have gone something like this, "Yes, Obama won the election, but the people also chose to maintain the body in which the Constitution vests taxing and spending authority in GOP hands.   President Obama's proposal to raise taxes, spend $60 billion MORE, and demand that Congress hand over unlimited authority over the debt ceiling to the executive branch shows how irresponsible and contemptuous the president is on fiscal matters and we have to be the adults in the room."

There were two positions that the GOP could have taken that were superior to where we ended up.  The first, and the one advocated by this writer, would have been to pass Simpson Bowles.  That would have put Obama in a terrible political box since it was HIS commission's proposal.  I wrote to my Congressman proposing that and two days later, he (along with Congressman Lapinski) proposed exactly that.   The second tactic would have been to allow the fiscal cliff to happen, and raise taxes on ALL taxpayers.  That would have had the double benefit of all taxpayers feel the brunt of the Big Government costs that they supposedly voted in and ensured there would be meaningful spending cuts.

Instead, Boehner and McConnell chose surrender.  I was so incensed that I tweeted conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, who commented on my tweet and retweeted it.

Michelle Malkin @michellemalkin No, they are pantsing US. RT @mkos66:@michellemalkin Boehner and McConnell got totally pantsed. 02:29 PM - 01 Jan 13