Dakota Beacon

Now that congress, including North Dakota’s congressional delegation, voted us into a catastrophic fiscal hole, everyone agrees reducing the national debt is a good thing.

But wait! Didn’t Obama, Pomeroy, Conrad and Dorgan assure us that their proposed health care “reform” bill was based on its deficit neutrality? They knew otherwise and didn’t tell us. Even the Congressional Budget Office didn’t believe the neutrality argument and said so.

Long before a final health care vote, in January 2010, Obama and congressional leaders prepared the way by agreeing to convene a debt commission that will propose recommendations targeting the reduction of the national debt.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR -- there’s that word “reform” again) will assess all government programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, federal and military retirement and every federal spending program. Their goal is to propose reductions to the annual federal deficit from 10 percent to 3 percent by 2015.

In late February Obama appointed former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson to co-chair the 18-member NCFRR.

The debt commission will include 8 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Six each will be named by House and Senate leaders, respectively. In addition to the two co-chairs, the remaining four will be named by the White House.

NCFRR members include presidential appointees Bruce Reed as Executive Director, Alice Rivlin, David Cote and Ann Fudge.

Senators include Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Michael D. Crapo (R-ID) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Representatives include Xavier Becerra (D-CA), John Spratt (D-SC), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), David Camp (R-MI), Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) and Jeb Hensarting (R-TX).

The first meeting will convene on April 27 in Washington, DC.

NCFRR will also suggest options to increase federal revenue. By now everyone knows that Senator Conrad proposed a value added tax (VAT) equivalent to a national sales tax or consumption tax. On May 27, 2009, in an interview with the “Washington Post” he stated, “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.” With his appointment to the NCFRR he now sits at that table.

Keep in mind, the VAT would not replace the income tax or the inheritance tax. VAT would be in addition to it. Thus, everyone ends up paying their “fair share,” even the poor.

Typically, congressmen and senators dodge the hard decisions. No matter that we expect them to make hard decisions. Remember, their first task is to get re-elected and they will not jeopardize that goal. Making unpopular decisions is a fast track to retirement. Rule #1: Do the legislative damage, then run and hide behind a commission. What courage!

Other attempts to avoid unpalatable political decisions over the years met with varying degrees of success. Multiple iterations of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process relieved congress from making tough decisions. BRAC’s objective was to achieve the government goal of closing and realigning military installations despite unpopular fallout. Grand Forks AFB is an example. BRAC recommendations were bundled in packages and voted on en masse by congress without amendment. That gave legislators political cover. The Pentagon proposed the same money-saving recommendations individually over the years but congress did not have the courage to act. BRAC’s fifth iteration was completed in 2005.

On the other hand, the 1994-1995 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, on which Senator Simpson sat, failed to reach consensus on its recommendations. No matter. Politicians went their merry way in congress attempting to enact the recommendations piecemeal with varying degrees of success.

NCFRR’s deadline for recommendations is December 1, 2010, and that could prove a challenge. If it is any consolation, 14 of the 18 members must agree on all proposed recommendations. That kind of agreement might be difficult given the difference of opinions on the commission.

Regardless of the commission’s recommendations, the first session of the 112th Congress will have a new composition of members with which Obama must work.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Effective April 1, 2010, a 21% fee cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors went into effect.

While senators and congressmen on Easter vacation fanned out across the country selling the wonders of their health care handiwork, seniors remained concerned that congress failed once again to solve Medicare’s cut to doctors’ fees.

Here’s the recent congressional track record on the doctor fee fix. Cuts in the doctor payment rates have been deferred for years. Until deferred by congress, recent cuts were to go into effect in October 2009, then January 1, 2010, then February 28. However, because congress did not act before the most recent deadline, the rate cuts are now in effect as of April 1.

Congress created the problem originally. Here’s the background. Law requires Medicare payment rates to adjust each year for inflation -- except for doctor services. Doctor rates are set by a complicated mechanism established in 1997 called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula.

SGR is an ill-conceived archaic cost control measure. It establishes artificial “spending targets” (price controls) for annual health care expenditures based on the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If costs exceed the artificially set targets, doctor rates are cut. Incredibly, the GDP has no relation to the cost of doctor services or the actual cost of delivering health care.

Although congress has overridden the doctor fee cuts in the past, as they must do by law to prevent the cuts from going into effect, they are not obligated to intercede on a continuing basis. This year, congress did not act decisively in time to block the fee cut and consequently the cut went into effect on April 1 where it remains.

Knowingly using this flawed formula is unconscionable. The compounding problem will result in a cumulative fee cut of 25% in 2011.

In the past, “patches” were occasionally legislated retroactively, but that served only as a temporary fix. Supposedly, early in the second session of the 111th Congress, a “patch” will be enacted retroactively. It’s anybody’s guess why congress doesn’t come up with a permanent fix. They just keep kicking the can down the road.

How long will doctors live with congressional brinkmanship? How long will doctors rely on Medicare to pay them not knowing when or how much? Increasingly doctors no longer accept new Medicare patients. How long before doctors solve their problem by turning away existing Medicare patients as well? Or, simply terminate their practice altogether?

Even the much touted nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that continued reduction in doctor Medicare reimbursements will reduce beneficiaries’ access to medical care.

Medicare is just the tip of the iceberg. Congress typically keeps putting off a permanent fix in other areas. This is true of the way congress handles inefficient government programs like Social Security, the US Postal Service, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We’ll all grow old waiting for accountability from congress.

Congress should have focused on substantive health care issues such as the doctor fee travesty and solved it once and for all rather than overhaul the entire health care system to the detriment of the large majority.

Pushing for universal health care rather than solving existing problems, President Obama has demonstrated that he is a radical governing from the left. Unbelievably, North Dakota’s congressional delegation, wittingly or not, follows his lead.

If our congressional delegation won’t solve straight forward problems like the doctor fee enigma, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

Is it time for regime change?

Massive health care overhaul is a “done deal” despite its unpopularity.

One group is particularly concerned about their future medical care and the impact of the health care overhaul bill. These are the men and women of the armed services including veterans, retirees and active duty personnel -- the people who actually did something for their country. Unbelievably, medical compensation for their service is now at risk.

After the fact, House lawmakers had second thoughts on March 20 and voted 403 to 0 on HR 4887 to protect TRICARE military beneficiaries from unintended consequences of the national health care overhaul bill (HR 3590) signed into law by President Obama on March 23. This is what happens when congress doesn’t read a 2700 page bill.

HR 4887 would clarify the tax code to ensure that TRICARE coverage provided by Department of Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage. This clarification would secure service members, retirees and their families from requirements to purchase additional coverage or pay penalties to meet the new health insurance requirements.

With passage of the national health care reform bill, skepticism and anxiety among military veterans and retirees has never been higher. That uneasy feeling is justified. Here’s why.

Efforts were made early on to include corrective language in both the health care overhaul bill and the reconciliation bill addressing issues for veterans and retirees from all services. However, recommendations and suggestions provided to the House and Senate by The Military Coalition were patently rejected.

The Military Coalition (http://www.themilitarycoalition.org) is an alliance of 34 organizations representing 5.5 million members of the uniformed services -- active, reserve, retired, survivors, veterans -- and their families. The unified efforts of these organizations including the Association of the US Army, the Air Force Association, the Association of the US Navy, the National Association of the Uniformed Services, the Marine Corps League and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, among others, give voice to a broad cross section of military veterans and retirees. TMC may be one of the most formidable lobbying forces ever to fight on behalf of service members.

Nevertheless, the House and Senate chose not to honor any change in language and rejected amendments to “fix” HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and HR 4872, the Health Care Reconciliation Act.

It is unknown what the Senate will do now with the House-passed HR 4887. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Both houses of congress chose not to adopt clarifying language in the original bills and this does not sit well with veterans groups. Why should they trust White House and congressional leaders who rejected amendments to the bills’ language and who now “assure” veterans and retirees that the health care reform law will not adversely affect VA and TRICARE beneficiaries? Without the explicit language in the law, assurances from the highest levels leave room for doubt, a lot of doubt. Concerns remain high among millions of active and retired military and veterans of all services despite the continuing sales pitch by congressmen and senators on Easter recess.

Who’s looking out for the military veterans and retirees? Certainly not the North Dakota congressional delegation. Given the opportunity, Senators Conrad and Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy did not act to protect the health care needs of the military, the same military that protects them.

Undoubtedly, health care for everyone must be paid for. At what cost? Broken promises to veterans in order to fund the health care bill? The budgets of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are easy targets for cutting funds to pay for the health care overhaul.

At the current rate, military veterans and retirees can look forward to fighting over budget scraps doled out by an ungrateful congress after “higher” priorities are funded. It was never supposed to be like this. It is ethically and morally correct that promises made to veterans and retirees decades ago be kept.

If military veterans and retirees must do battle with other government departments for a diminishing slice of the health care pie, then they are up for one more fight.

Game on!

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Zero is a strange number. Zero can also be dangerous. On September 21, 1997, the USS Yorktown, a missile cruiser off the coast of Virginia, shut down unexpectedly. She went dead in the water. While installing new software that controlled the engines, a zero was overlooked that engineers were supposed to remove from the program upon installation. The zero remained in place until the Yorktown’s engine computer initiated a calculation that divided a number by the errant zero. Immediately the 80,000 horsepower cruiser shut down and came to a standstill. Any number divided by zero cannot be calculated.

Ponder, if you will, the idea of nothing, nada, zero. Is it possible to create something out of nothing? Only God has ever created “ex nihilo.”

Alchemists played the role of God with their strange philosophy, but they never accepted the challenge of creation. Instead, they believed that they could transmute other substances such as base metals into precious metals. Many spent their lives searching for the Midas touch that would change other substances into gold.

There was a time when the concept of zero didn’t exist. The ancients understood the idea of “nothing,” but the idea of zero had to be invented.

The Babylonians used a counting system similar in concept to that of an abacus. Unfortunately, they had no way to denote a placeholder representing nothing. From this need the zero was born.

Through mathematics, the Greek influence on the western world ranged far beyond its own civilization. Surprisingly, the Greek mathematical universe rested upon a major philosophical pillar. It did not account for voids. Greeks reasoned that one could not subtract a three acre swath from a two acre plot. Consequently, there was no need for a zero.

Centuries later the concept of zero struggled for acceptance in Europe. Greeks had no use for zero and Semitic peoples had no problem with it. Zero was at the center of controversy over the Gregorian calendar in use today versus the Julian calendar derived from the Greeks. Today, zero dwells at the center of controversy between the theories of quantum mechanics, relativity and the creation of the universe.

Is nothing ever something?

In a sense, yes. A zero is “something” when used as a placeholder, as in 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion). Large quantities like this are a blur whose value we accept on faith. Also, zero as placeholder created the Y2K or millennium bug panic.

A zero is “something” when used as a number, as in counting from -1 to 0 to +1. Or, as counting from the past (-1) to the future (+1) with 0 representing the present.

Used as a noun, Zero is “something” found on a grocery store shelf.

Something divided by nothing, or zero, in the world of mathematics is, after all, infinite. In the mathematical world as well as in the real world such a calculation is impossible to compute.

If zero is a threat in physics, it can be even more devastating in spinning social policy.

Suppose you have nothing as in “the federal government is out of money.” Then, suppose you divide that “nothing” into “something” as in “let’s cover the cost of giving ‘x’ million people health insurance coverage.” How does that compute?

Dividing something, such as increased government benefits for an increased number of people, by zero gives a result so infinitely small as to become non-existent.

“Greater fleas have little fleas

“Upon their backs to bite ‘em,

“And little fleas have lesser fleas,

“And so ad infinitum.“

Why can’t we understand this wisdom from our childhood?

Carried to its logical conclusion, beneficiaries of government health care will receive a reduced level of service and an increased but equal level of misery a la Canada, Britain and other socialist countries.

There are a lot of bright folks among us. The professional politicians we elect and re-elect which dispense laws from on high are not among them. They are certainly not the best and the brightest. They are, however, the true alchemists of the twenty-first century. The more dishonest ones sometimes succeed. For their personal gain they’re able to turn manure into gold.

As for the rest of us, we have created a less-than-sterling legacy for ourselves. And, the inheritance we leave our kids?

Zero -- or less.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The latest manifestation of vestigial conservatism comes in the form of the Tea Party movement.

The noun “conservative” signifies guardian or defender, the essence of a conservator.

Leaderless at the top with a grassroots groundswell from below, friends and neighbors, good citizens all, sense their government has gone awry. Their impression, evidenced by increased government intrusion, is that liberty is slipping away and freedom is at stake.

Tea Party attendees question whether they are welcome in the Republican Party and know they are not wanted in the Democrat Party. Their sentiments are neither rock ribbed Republican nor progressive Democrat.

Those who liable and excoriate as ignorant buffoons people who identify themselves as conservative kick dirt in the face of conservative heritage.

True conservatives are not ideological, but principled. Conservatism does not provide its adherents with an ideology. Conservatives loathe ideologies.

Systems for perfecting human beings and society are repugnant to conservatives. They know that elitist tools for forcing such systems on an unwilling public are authoritarian by design.

To truly live is to be free from oppression and regulation to the greatest extent possible, especially from an overbearing government. That’s why our founders subscribed totally to limited government. Constraining and molding human existence into a narrow and uniformly unnatural society for utilitarian objectives and egalitarian outcomes is wrong.

Conservatives respect the wisdom and thinking of their predecessors. They are very skeptical of a wholesale revision of societal structures and norms.

Stated another way, the essence of conservatism is the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Natural law is significant in the development of legal and political practices and integral to moral standards for judging individual and government conduct.

Edmund Burke first articulated modern conservatism in his work “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” His book distinguished between “conservation” on the one hand and “innovation” on the other. The American Revolution was, in fact, a conservative reaction to innovations by British parliamentary radicals.

The chaos from which we have been thus far preserved looms as a menace before us in the twenty-first century.

Throughout the twentieth century generations progressed steadily into secularization for which material existence is everything and spiritual life in the western tradition means little. The progress was characterized by movement from a traditional to a revised order. The effect was to increasingly eliminate from consciousness a sound understanding of civics, family and traditional education.

The Tea Party movement is an uprising against government social and fiscal abuse. These people see inalienable rights of Americans slowly strangled and many average citizens at the grassroots perceive it, too. Trying to stifle the movement, liberals, progressives and fellow travelers behave as only radicals can. They violate established order, govern against the will of the people and discount a yearning for freedom.

It’s possible that much in our culture remains worth protecting, conserving and even renewing.

Those who pronounced the eclipse of conservatism at the beginning of the twenty-first century are deathly afraid of conservatism’s virtual ascendancy. Thanks to great thinkers like Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and Cardinal John Henry Newman followed by contemporary thinkers like William F. Buckley, Jr., Irving Kristol and Russell Kirk, conservatism is once again rising.

The 2010 Winter Olympics are over and what a time it was. The pursuit for excellence goes on.

No commentator can spin the reality of success. Competition is what it is. What you see is what you get.

Old records fall and new records are set. A bit of nostalgia welled as I saw prior Olympic champions in the audience watch as their records were eclipsed.

The U.S. led in the medal count with a total of 37 bronze, silver and gold medals as of late Sunday afternoon. That’s the highest ever for Winter Olympics.

But, competition is more than just medals. Medals are the culmination. Behind the awards is sweat, pain and heartache.

The Olympics is a microcosm of life. Not everyone is A or B. Some are C or D. Not everyone excels at everything, nor can they.

The Olympics dispel the fiction that people are equal. They may be created equal before God and the law, but physically, emotionally, in mental toughness and in stamina every athlete, every person, is unique.

Contemporary thinking in some quarters holds that competition is unhealthy. Maybe outcome based basketball would be more to their liking, but would it breed champions in sports or in life?

As always, competition focuses on the challenge to exceed one’s goals. This is the fundamental building block of self esteem, proving to yourself that you can achieve. If you can’t beat yourself, how will you ever improve or excel? It illustrates that self-esteem is not institutionally taught, but self-taught. It comes through trial and error with life’s experiences.

There is equal opportunity, yes. But equal outcome? No. This is one of life’s great lessons.

Some people find their niche at an early age, are motivated to excel and pursue their goals. Others never find their niche. We can empathize with them, but only they can change themselves.

Not everyone can be the best. But everyone can strive to do their best. That’s fundamental to building character. Human beings are a resilient species. Like any athlete, every one of us bears witness to this.

Many athletes started at a very early age and drove themselves. Figure skater Johnny Weir taught himself skating at age 9. He learned an Axel in one day and in two weeks performed a double Axel.

Not everyone made the Olympic team on their first try. This was the case with speed skater Apolo Ohno. In 1996 at age 15 he failed to make the Olympic team and almost gave up skating.

Athletes learn the difference between pain and injury. Pain you work through in pursuit of your objective. Injury quite often renders you incapable of continuing.

Most of the athletes overcame disability and injury on their climb to top.

After 62 years, Steve Holcomb drove his 4-man bobsled team to victory. Until recently, Holcomb had 20-500 vision caused by a degenerative eye condition. He drove the team sled by feel rather than sight. Even after eye surgery he still scuffs his visor so that his vision won’t distract from his feel of the bobsled.

Snowboarder Shaun White won the gold medal in the Men’s Halfpipe. He was born with a heart defect requiring multiple surgeries. He was also severely bowlegged requiring that he wear corrective braces at night.

Alpine skier Julia Mancuso had hip surgery in 2006 to repair a chronic hip problem. She continues to struggle against pain plagued with hip and back problems.

Alpine skier Lindsey Vonn skied with a broken pinkie finger on in the final women’s giant slalom. She broke it in a fall the previous day in her first slalom run.

These examples are not exceptions. They’re common.

There’s no fools gold in the Olympic Games. One succeeds or one does not succeed. Two years from now in London the 2012 Summer Olympics will commence and we’ll again see old records broken and new records set. To everything there is a season.

One can only stand in awe of excellence

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Picking the right word to explain manmade climate change is tough. Ruse. Charade. Fraud. Scary. Sham. Bogus. Deceit. Ploy. Trick. Phony.

Belief that infinitesimally small man can change climate is the height of conceit.

However, it’s not difficult to state the plight of the crusade. Failure. The crusade is falling faster than the temperature is rising.

TV and radio ads to the contrary, more and more people repudiate the so called “green revolution.” Carbon trading and investments in “green” companies are down. Most people reject CO2 cap and trade legislation once they grasp the intent. Healthy skepticism replaces blind optimism.

Why? Could it be that scandal after scandal has rocked the cause? That the data underlying public policy is fake?

It’s a shame Americans must rely on the foreign press for stories the U.S. mainstream media won’t cover. Yet, what other option is there?

The U.K. “Guardian,” usually an advocate for the manmade global warming scenario, found reason for hesitation recently.

Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, was relieved for suppressing the work of skeptics and critics.

The “Guardian” found serious flaws in major data contributions from Chinese weather stations and further discovered principle research documents were missing.

There’s more deception on the ugly global warming con job.

--The United Nations claim that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was based on one non-scientist’s fiction.

--Researchers, scanning global temperatures over the last half of the 20th century, had cherry-picked dates for record temperatures.

--The UN incorrectly identified global warming as linked to the rising cost of natural disasters.

The list goes on. A web site that tabulates the ongoing string of stories highlighting the dishonesty of manmade climate change is found at http://www.climatedepot.com/.

Nevertheless, Obama administration apologists maintain a stiff upper lip. NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco quickly pointed out that “weather is not the same as climate.” Duh, like, freedom is not slavery and war is not peace. Phil Jones, one of the architects of the scandal, recanted and said there was no global warming in the last 15 years. Yet, NOAA maintains that 1998 was the hottest year on record.

Lubchenco sticks to the manmade climate change hoax even when the promulgators of false data on which the deception was based admitted error. There is a word for public policy based on dogma. Propaganda.

That mankind is warming the planet through his activities is pure speculation elevated to the level of scientific fact.

For congress, state legislatures and public schools, the belief in manmade climate change has imposed a decade-long intellectual straight jacket on our thinking about environmental stewardship. As an article of faith, it was settled science because Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore said so. No questions asked.

No one disputes that we should be ever vigilant in our monitoring of air and water pollution. But conservation and good stewardship of natural resources rejects the fantasy of manmade climate change.

And to think that Congressman Earl Pomeroy committed North Dakota to cap and trade legislation predicated on bogus manmade climate change data!

No sane person would hold up the cadre of manmade climate change proponents as scions of Character Counts.

Smart people are backing away from the fraud and deception of falsified data. Only politicians and stubborn ideological nitwits chase that myth and illusion.

The bloom is off the rose. Time to call a time-out on anything alleging manmade climate change. Use that time to separate climate from left-wing liberal politics.

In the mid-1960s a psychiatrist named Dr. Eric Berne wrote a popular rendition of transactional analysis titled “Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships.” His special area of investigation was the dead serious little “games” we play with each other. What Dr. Berne described were not “fun” games, but neurotic rituals in which satisfaction is gained by some people at the expense of others.

This holds true with the game of bipartisanship commonly practiced in the political area.

“Bipartisan” is defined as anything consisting of, or supported by, members of two parties, especially two major political parties. That is the definition of the word.

As practiced, however, bipartisanship is used as a public opinion weapon placed in the hands of the public in hopes of using them to beat an opponent into submission. What is said is one thing. What is done is quite a different matter. It becomes a semantic power game.

Words? Just words? Say one thing; do another. Bipartisanship, as used by Democrats like Senators Conrad and Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy, simply means that Republicans must compromise their core beliefs to agree with Democrats. Never is there talk of bipartisanship with Obama and the Democrat majority acquiescing to Republican requests.

In May 2009 Republicans asked Obama to include them in discussions on health care. Obama’s response was to send Rahm Emanuel to Capitol Hill to write health care legislation with Democrat leaders behind closed doors shutting out Republicans.

Now, Obama wants a bipartisan meeting on health care legislation scheduled for February 25. The meeting will comprise twelve Democrats and nine Republicans.

There is a very good reason for Obama to call for bipartisanship now. In a congress mired in gridlock on every major issue, words like bipartisan give cover to the Democrat majority. Even with a super majority in congress the Democrats are fractured beyond repair. The House Democrats say “no” to Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats say “no” to House Democrats. Blue Dog Democrats say “no” to everybody. Obama’s problem is not the Republicans. It’s his own Democrats. Republicans can do nothing to stop a unified Democrat super majority.

Bipartisanship is a staged propaganda event, short and simple.

Congressmen Boehner and Cantor offered a cool response to Obama’s invitation in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The text included a series of questions. Here is the gist of the February 8 letter.

--Will the president make available to congress and all Americans any proposal at least 72 hours before a vote?

--Will the president take off the table any intent to rely solely on Democrat votes in order to ram health care through congress?

--Will the president invite officials and lawmakers from state governments to participate?

--Will discussions include experts from the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid who have determined that current proposals will raise costs, just the opposite of Democrat claims?

Obama’s call for bipartisanship is imaginary transparency. He does not care about Republican ideas. He has called for a bipartisan meeting for two reasons. First, at long last he will fulfill his promise to televise health care negotiations on C-SPAN. Second, he can use the edited transcripts in November to produce campaign propaganda TV commercials supporting Democrats against Republicans.

Bottom line: Survey after survey reveal that Americans don’t like what they see of health care legislation. Most wish the process would start over with a level playing field, not merely be tweaked in bipartisan meetings. President Obama and the Democrat congressional leadership want proposed health care legislation left in tact and have said so.

By trying to force health care on an unwilling America the Democrats, at their peril, are governing against the will of the people. They play a dead serious game in doing so.

And this gripes fair-minded Americans.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

So many -illions. Millions. Billions. Trillions. What’s next? Try quadrillion. That would be a “1” with 15 zeros behind it. Get used to it. It will soon be part of our lexicon.

President Obama submitted his 2011 budget on February 2. In a word, the president wants to spend $3.83 trillion in 2011 creating a deficit of $1.27 trillion and increasing the national debt to $15.1 trillion.

Obama can play IBF (it’s Bush’s fault) only so long before sounding ridiculous. After a year in office and with his own budget submission creating havoc, he owns the economic malaise. The least he can do is accept responsibility.

It’s not inappropriate to point out that Senator Obama voted for every budget proposal Bush sent to congress. Therefore, President Obama is complicit in any debt or deficit we face.

The effect of congressional meddling is easy to grasp. Spending without financial resources causes a deficit. Congress is famous for this. With no one to buy our debt congress must raise taxes to finance the shortfall. Taxes stifle business. A shrinking business environment generates unemployment in the private sector. An expanding government creates government jobs, but it must raise taxes even further to pay the public employees thereby compounding the problem.

Meanwhile, no new wealth is created although old wealth is consumed. The argument that “stimulus” money will “stimulate the economy” is deceiving. True, it puts money in the hands of people who will spend it, but money going around in circles creates no new wealth. Only the private sector effectively creates new wealth. Government consumes it. When stimulus money runs out and the private sector cannot sustain growth, then what?

We’ve seen it all before during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era. Historically, and with 20/20 hindsight, it is undeniable that the hero of that era, which Obama seeks to emulate, prolonged the Great Depression far longer and deeper with government intervention that it would have without it.

After Obama delivered his budget, it’s now congress’s turn. Typically, when congress finishes adding their earmarks, it inevitably exceeds the president’s proposal. Dollars to donuts North Dakota’s congressman and senators will vote for much more spending than Obama proposed. And Obama’s proposal was obscene.

Senator “Lame Duck” Dorgan has no reason to vote against any spending measure. After November he will no longer be accountable the North Dakotans.

Candidate Pomeroy, in an attempt to cover up his votes for health care and cap and trade, has raised a populist howl over AIG contractual bonuses as if that were enough to divert attention.

Senator Conrad, though not up for re-election until 2012, is already tip-toeing through the minefields playing a confidence game with constituents. On February 4 the “Wall Street Journal” ran a front page story explaining how he is a deficit hawk in Washington and a spendy dove for North Dakota. Watch Conrad’s earmarks in spite of the indignation he voiced upon receipt of Obama’s budget in his Budget Committee.

Obama consciously models his presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt. Statistics to the contrary, FDR’s image remains that he saved America from the Great Depression. Arguably, FDR’s Great Depression was not a manmade disaster, but unquestionably FDR prolonged the depression through his policies. Deficit government spending generated tax increases leading to greater unemployment. We’ve seen it all before.

FDR created some institutions that may have helped during the depression. We can debate the effectiveness of the Security and Exchange Commission as well as reform of the Federal Reserve system.

Other creations such as the National Recovery Administration definitely hurt the recovery through price setting. The Tennessee Valley Authority killed the private electric utility initiative underway through the Commonwealth and Southern Power Company.

FDR was committed to economic experimentation. A combination of tax hikes and union strikes, both a direct result of Roosevelt’s policies, prevented companies from hiring workers and prolonged the depression. The uncertainty generated by unpredictable policies from New Dealers stifled business growth and expansion.

FDR’s budget doubled between 1931 and 1938 while concurrently unemployment climbed. The CCC and WPA destroyed jobs in the private sector by creating make-work jobs in government. Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 25% and only dropped to 17% by 1940.

From 1929 to 1940 a struggle ensued between the public and private sectors of the economy. The private sector dominated in the beginning, the public sector dominated at the end.

Unlike today’s global warming scam, Obama’s recession is very much manmade. Sadly, it doesn’t have to be this way.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Sometime between Martin Luther King Day and Groundhog Day America is rescued from winter’s doldrums by the spectacle of the president’s State of the Union speech. This year’s presidential delivery was less a state of the union than it was a lecture to the fractious. It also included another distribution of goodies to “the people.”

President Obama doesn’t like the cards dealt to him of late, to wit: the election of Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s old seat, the apparent collapse of health care legislation in congress, nagging high unemployment and low poll numbers. What’s a president to do?

Well, he can always apply P. T. Barnum’s dictum to Americans. “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

For its bold attempt at feigning populism, Obama’s discourse was riddled with cornpone and chutzpah. Huey Long couldn’t have done better himself. So, here we have Mr. Obama posing as Mr. Populist.

“Fakery” is the word that comes to mind in describing Obama’s efforts. For him, shifting into populist mode is more political style than substance. Woe to the gullible who swallows his pandering hook, line and sinker.

Simply put, populism characterizes anti-establishment sentiment. It focuses on grassroots democracy and egalitarianism. It extols the amorphous virtues of the “common man,” the “working class,” and the “underdog” in a romantic sort of way. One key point of populist thinking is skepticism about banks.

Attempting to corral populist sentiment, Mr. Obama framed his new strategy in his State of the Union oration. He correctly perceives that Americans are angry. He may not appreciate how angry they are with their government.

Obama believes he can channel American anger, with the help of congressmen and senators, by redirecting it against populism’s old nemeses including big business, insurance companies, Wall Street firms and banks -- especially banks. In reality, this is stirring up class warfare disguised as populism.

In his scolding he assaulted banks, bank profits and a recent Supreme Court decision. Then, he attempted to divide Americans by throwing sops to the “middle-class”: creation of a Middle Class Task Force, tax credits for moderate-income families who pay day care, child-care subsidies for low-income families, tax credits for retirement savings, easier repayment of student loans. The list goes on.

Some people he can string along. But his argument evaporates when he singles out banks selectively for punishment. Why not impose punitive taxes on athletes, Hollywood stars, high tech industries and officials of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

At last there is transparency. The foolishness of faux populism is on display, yet some people will fall for the illusion. Depleting bank reserves denies money to those who need it and want to better their lives. Banks exist as a conduit to pass cash from those who have excess cash to those who want or need cash. Without banks where will people turn? Government? And, where does government get money?

As usual, government perverts the process when it inserts itself as a micro-manager. Banks get diverted from their original intent. Our neighbors to the north do not have a banking crisis and Canadian banks did not require bailouts. Why? The Canadian parliament did not force Canadian banks into some quasi-populist sub-prime loan racket. They let capitalism function properly.

With Obama scapegoating the banks under his phony populist crusade, the only folks that will get hurt will be the middle class.

But, what if the people aren’t on board with the populist message? What if Dear Leader looks more like a chameleon than a champion? Let “the people” decide.

Americans aren’t stupid. Many folks can spot a phony a mile away. They’re skeptical of trading freedom for nanny state control of their lives.

For those few who truly believe the phony bologna rhetoric of populism that big is bad; that big business, big insurance and big pharmacy are bad; and that big banks are really bad, then Barack Obama’s their kind of guy. They’ll blindly support him together with the congress that marches in lockstep with him whatever the cost.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

As Christmas 2009 fades, the tangible “stuff” lingers on to join in other “things” as reminders of Christmases past. In particular one item given to me this year is a metaphor of sorts on Christmases past -- the classic history on eleven DVDs titled “The World at War.”

Tersely put, some gifts are more cherished than others. “The World at War” is cherished.

This made-for-television production was first broadcast in 1973 but it wasn’t until the mid-1970s that I gained my first exposure to the series

A classic is defined as something “of the first or highest quality, class or rank.” That’s the only appropriate way to classify this DVD series. “The World at War,” the stellar British documentary of World War II, is the definitive visual record of the war, the events leading up to the war and its aftermath thus setting the scene for the Cold War.

This landmark series comprises rare interviews with eyewitness participants including veterans, survivors, ordinary men and women and political notables of the period. It brings together a collection of powerful visual documentation produced by both the Allies and the Axis powers and compiled from the archives of eighteen nations. It includes footage from newsreels, official sources, home movies and propaganda pieces.

I find truly amazing that such a quantity of documentation has been so well preserved and archived. Contributions span the period 1933 through 1945 including Pearl Harbor, the Final Solution, the bombing of Hiroshima and the reckoning of the world war and beyond.

“The World at War” has been favorably compared to Edward Gibbons’ “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” The series offers an incomparable remembrance of the greatest period of the 20th century. It creates an unbelievable panorama illustrating the breadth and scope of World War II as well as the events leading to it and its influence on the events following.

Although the series contains a fair amount of military footage, it is not all graphic combat. Economic, social and political events factor into an intelligible portrayal of the century’s landmark event with combat footage placed in context.

In a world of imagery, where sociologist Neil Postman bemoans the decline of the printed word in his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” this DVD series excels as a masterpiece. It is far more than entertainment. It captures for all time an era never to be forgotten and emblazons it upon the memory.

Originally produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television, the series includes 26 hour-long episodes spanning a wealth of material together with bonus interviews with Sir Jeremy, Stephen Ambrose and others. For his effort, Jeremy Isaacs was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. The series soon appeared on video cassette before being digitally remastered and released by A&E in its current DVD format.

This documentary is far better than anything produced on World War II by the History Channel, PBS or A&E. It is certainly better than anything to come out of Hollywood including the realistic film “Saving Private Ryan.”

I particularly enjoy the absence of political correctness so prevalent in today’s productions. An analytical perspective of a world at war that claimed fifty million lives is seldom achieved without bias. If there is any bias in this definitive visual account of World War II it would be toward the British interpretation of the war.

I continue to appreciate this visual chronicle as I always have. It’s quite gratifying to survey and recall the fine material once again presented after so many years.

No student’s education is complete without viewing at least some of the episodes of “The World at War.” It is an unforgettable viewing experience and cannot be praised highly enough.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A new addition to our extended family arrived in early December and, consequently, added a new round of Christmas memories. Our son and his wife were blessed with a new baby girl on December 1st and we hovered  unobtrusively over the family through the holidays.

Every time I hold a newborn infant I marvel at the delicate features, the helplessness, the utter dependence upon parents and family. I'm in awe of this tiny person, this innocence and the wonder and curiosity in the infant's eyes.

Once, and only once, I reflected on the dark fate of so many of my granddaughter's predecessors. For reasons unknown, sinister thoughts arose. One of the horrors of the human race flits through my mind,
thoughts of parents doing unthinkable harm to their own tiny, helpless children. This horror has happened time and again.

Infanticide is the intentional killing of an infant or child. The practice of infanticide occurred on every continent and in every culture, high and low, throughout recorded history. In human behavior, infanticide appears to be the rule rather than the exception.

Justification for the wonton destruction of children emerges under an assortment of stressful and pragmatic conditions. Two of the most frequent reasons were alleviation of poverty and population control.

The scarce supply of food always curtailed population growth. Starvation could be controlled by restricting the number of children allowed to mature to adulthood. While male and female infanticide controlled the population in general, societal prejudice against females characterized many male dominated cultures.

The ritualistic religious killing of children to appease supernatural beings often occurred in ancient times. Carthaginians and Phoenicians sacrificed their babies to their gods. Canaanites burned infants to Baal.

Israelites in the Old Testament were forbidden to burn their infants in sacrifice to the god Moloch.
In Greek and Roman times abandoning infants on dung heaps took place regularly. Egyptian culture was an exception. Egyptians did not practice infanticide and, in fact, had strong mores against it. They would rescue abandoned infants from the dung heaps of Greek and Roman colonists.

Psychological and psychiatric factors instigated infanticide on occasion. The Biblical account of King Herod killing all male children of a certain age in order to alleviate the threat of an alien king is an example.

Sex selection is another factor. Typically human societies maintain a balance of 105 males to every 100 females. Skewed gender ratios outside a range of 102 to 108 males to every 100 females usually infers sex selection by infanticide. Such is the case with "missing generations" of females in India and China. Pre-Mohammed Arabs practiced selection through female infanticide routinely.

The practice of infanticide and child sacrifice in the New World took place at a time when it was largely abandoned in Europe. Eskimos practiced newborn female infanticide by throwing the infant into the sea.
In the Eastern Shoshone tribe there was a scarcity of Indian women due to female infanticide. In southern Texas the Mariame Indians practiced female infanticide to the extent that wives had to be obtained from neighboring tribes. Aztec and Inca practiced infanticide.

Even today, evidence of infanticide exists in New Guinea, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, West Africa and in some regions of India and China. Again, economic reasons are cited although this becomes difficult to understand when assistance is available from wealthy western countries and the United Nations.

Vestiges of infanticide remain with us drawing upon the same justifications. Doing away with unwanted children postpartum is illegal. It's murder. Prenatal disposal of unwanted children, however, is another matter. Abortion, in many jurisdictions, is legal and available without precondition. As opposed to infanticide, the product of conception is believed easier to deal with. Out of sight, out of mind.

From all appearances, the prenatal disposal of infants may soon be institutionalized with the public funding of abortion in the pending health care legislation. Our granddaughter is fortunate to have been born in this day and age and is destined to good health and well-being. She is safe, loved and wanted.
Her parents and grandparents will do whatever it takes to ensure her safe passage through childhood.
Lucky for her.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

On December 1, 2009, President Obama delivered his Afghanistan surge speech at West Point. Four days later, on December 5, Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, General Barry R. McCaffrey (U.S. Army, Retired) released his After Action Report (AAR) prepared as a memo for the Head of the Department of Social Sciences, United States Military Academy. The AAR dealt with his recent strategic and operational assessment of security operations in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s speech was overtly political. General McCaffrey’s AAR provided a realistic military assessment.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I confess my bias. Years ago, as young officers, McCaffrey and I were classmates at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College sharing tactics classes together. I was as impressed then, as I am now, with his keen intellect.

General McCaffrey based his AAR on a series of personal observations and conversations at the invitation of General David Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command. Given the improbability that his observations would receive coverage beyond a small coterie of professionals, I share them here.

General McCaffrey opened his report by rendering the obligatory kudos to President Obama’s West Point speech. He then deftly pointed out that the speech was “an appropriate political statement which delivered resources to his field commander.” He also took note of the president’s explanation why he would not downsize or withdraw “and face the short term political and military disaster that would immediately ensue.”

With his opening remarks, General McCaffrey frankly acknowledged “there is precious little support for the Afghan operation among the American people. 66% say it is not worth fighting for. Only 45% of Americans and few among his political party approve of President Obama’s handling of the war.”

Continuing with his blunt assessment, the general goes on to state “we are unlikely to achieve our political and military goals in 18 months. This will inevitably become a three to ten year strategy to build a viable Afghan state with their own security force that can allow us to withdraw. It may well cost us an additional $300 billion and we are likely to suffer thousands more U.S. casualties.”

General McCaffrey’s conclusion regarding America’s objective may be summarized in one sentence. “Our focus must not now be on an exit strategy -- but effective execution of the political, economic, and military measures required to achieve our purpose.”

Although the president’s speech was billed as his Afghanistan strategy speech, he spent remarkably little time discussing Afghanistan. It resembled a patronizing lecture to the Corps of Cadets about America’s failures.

President Obama’s speech was very much about placating as many sides of the political spectrum as possible. He never stated clearly the objective of the surge. He did not speak of winning the war. He never used the word “victory.” What he did establish was an eighteen-month artificial deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He did not explain why he decided on eighteen months rather than fifteen months or twenty-four months. Nor did he explain why he authorized 30,000 rather than 40,000 or 50,000 additional troops.

Comparing the president’s speech to the general’s AAR, the general’s report clearly provided substance over form.

Of necessity, the president had to convey a long-delayed decision regarding field commander General Stan McChrystal’s request for reinforcements. The president was not enthusiastic about his obligation to make that decision. The demeanor of his speech showed as much.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Random bits and pieces from the passing scene make an eye-catching collage.

Health care legislation in its various forms considered by the senate contains various provisions Senator Conrad vows not to support. He states he will not support any measure that contains government funded abortions. He also states he will not support a “government option” health care provision.

Yet, he voted to begin debate on the senate health care bill which passed on Saturday night, November 21, with a vote of 60-39. He could have voted against sending the bill to the senate floor for debate. Instead, he voted with the majority. That means he believes that abortion and a “government option” are debatable with a good chance they will be adopted in a final senate version of the bill. Does anyone really believe he will vote against a final version of a health care bill that contains these provisions?

Speaking of health care, Senator Dorgan informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he intends to submit an amendment to the senate health care bill for his favorite topic -- drug re-importation. No matter that the amendment would undo the fragile alliance Obama forged with pharmaceutical companies that supported the president’s health care proposals.

The problem with drug re-importation requirements is that pharmaceutical companies selling drugs to countries with price controls, such as Canada, must recoup their losses by increasing prices on drugs and devices sold in the United States. Ergo, U.S. citizens, in effect, subsidize Canadian drugs and drug policies. Pharmaceutical companies can’t sell to U.S. citizens at Canadian prices and remain in business, much less pioneer new drugs and devices.

It doesn’t take an economist to figure out why unemployment keeps rising. As long a government insists on increasing the cost of doing business, businesses will do whatever it takes to remain solvent. That includes reducing the largest business expense of all -- personnel.

Question: What is the easiest way to win an election? Answer: Run in a vacuum. To date, Earl Pomeroy voted for a wildly unpopular health care bill after holding zero town hall meetings at home. He voted for cap and trade legislation which punishes agriculture as well as the coal and oil industries in North Dakota. Finally, he voted for the estate tax which will soundly penalize the agriculture industry. Who is holding him accountable? It certainly is not the Republican Party.

The consummate political putdown is to accuse a neighbor across the aisle of shunning bipartisanship. However, congressional cries for bipartisanship withered following a clear Democrat majority in both houses of congress. With one party in control of congress, who needs bipartisanship?

Bipartisanship may be a conundrum when used in referring to an insoluble problem. Or, bipartisanship, when used as “bipartisan cooperation“ becomes an oxymoron.

Conversely, partisanship is what people vote for and expect. The electorate votes for senators and representatives who will abide their wishes passionately. The people who put officials in office expect them to fulfill certain promises without compromise. They expect principled effort, not wishy-washy moderation.

In any case, Democrats don’t need bipartisanship. They need unity and, to date, don‘t have it.

Americans have advanced to the point where no one is responsible for the consequences of their own actions but everyone is responsible for the consequences of everyone else’s actions. Accountability becomes an American shibboleth. Is this a great country, or what?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The credibility of manmade global warming, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), hangs in the balance.

Hoax. Scam. Fraud. Deception. Quackery. Call it what you will. Scandal envelops the global warming advocacy community with a vengeance.

First came word on November 19 that the main server at the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had been penetrated. Hackers obtained 160 megabytes of spicy e-mails exchanged between leading global warming advocates from around the world. Time and again throughout their e-mails the proponents of AGW allude to the data destroyed, omitted or otherwise hidden in order to advance their AGW pet theory. (See http://www.eastangliaemails.com for the published e-mails.)

The collaborative snow job goes even further. Six weeks earlier came word of the questionable use of tree rings as a means for determining the history of global temperature change. This story came to light when published in “Environment” on September 29 and reported in the “UK Register.”  It challenges the accuracy and truthfulness of several climate change papers used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to advance global environmental policy. The papers were predicated on a “reconstruction” of historical temperature changes derived from the study of tree rings (dendrochronology).

Using tree rings to “reconstruct” global temperatures is controversial at best. This “reconstruction” ignores other ring influences such as CO2 and nutrient intake as well as humidity and rainfall. Worse yet, proactive AGW scientists failed to archive raw data. This makes it impossible for other scientists to check the data or replicate the results.

Turns out only three trees from the Siberian Yamal Peninsula were used, and these were cherry picked to support the AGW pre-ordained conclusion.

Concurrently came the revelation that access to data was denied to skeptical fellow climate scientists for purposes of peer review. Prestigious peer review journals such as “Nature” and “Science” were reluctant to press AGW advocates for data because the journals’ editors themselves shared the AGW biases.

Two Canadian heroes, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, devoted years to seeking release of the raw data from the CRU. Their determination to verify the tree ring “reconstruction” resulted in the truth of the Yamal data fraud coming to light.

The point? The “consensus” among climatologists for manmade global warming rests on rigged data. In other words, the validity of the AGW claim just went up in smoke.

Any one of these stories ought to be a gold mine for investigative journalists. It is one of the biggest scandals to come down the pike in years. However, as far as the sycophant media is concerned, the stories never happened. Ergo, the scant coverage.

It is hard to believe that scientists manipulated data to advance the manmade global warming notion. Men of repute from the Universities of Arizona, Pennsylvania State, Massachusetts at Amherst as well as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California conspired to manipulate the data. The entire concept of manmade global warming is contrived.

The perpetrators, of course, blame the hackers. Why would they not turn the tables and plot strategy to discredit those who uncovered the hoax? The stakes are high. To allow the disclosure of the hoax to continue would destroy the reputation of many scientists. Additionally, AGW advocates and their institutions risk the loss of huge amounts of federal grant money.

Implications are enormous. A second global warming treaty negotiated at Copenhagen next week makes no sense at all. The vast amount of greenhouse gas emissions, estimated at 99.7%, is beyond human control. At the same time, the cost to reduce further emissions is estimated to cost over $100 trillion. Much of that cost would be borne by the United States.

The White House remains mum. Oblivious to the scandal, President Obama is traveling to Copenhagen to sign a global warming treaty replacing the Kyoto Accords (which the U.S. never signed). It would obligate the U.S. to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and subsidize reduction in other countries to the tune of billions of dollars. Our lifestyle would change.

Congressional leaders, too, remain silent about the hoax. Congress long ago bought the AGW argument with the passage of cap and trade legislation in the U.S. House. Now the Senate takes its whack at cap and trade.

Are we living in a fantasy world or what?