The Search for a Cure

In the news today it was reported that the AMA has officially recognized obesity as a disease. It is anticipated that classifying fatness as a disease will spur health insurance providers to pick up the costs of treating it. The news was greeted with enthusiasm by those laboring to shrink the belt size in the U.S. It was stated that the AMA's declaration "could help increase funding for future obesity research. It could also lead to payment for doctors who want to simply talk to patients about nutrition or exercise -- time that's not currently reimbursed by insurance plans." At least that is what is hoped for by those who make it their business to mind the nation's belt size. There is an unmentioned secondary benefit resulting from the AMA's decision that is sure to be welcomed by many plus sized Americans. Treating obesity as a disease will serve to relieve them of responsibility for their condition. They will no longer be open to accusations of being lazy and gluttonous. They have a disease.While there may be instances where there is a physiological condition or a genetic abnormality is present and may contribute to a predilection for obesity, such causes are rare. Bad dietary habits and sedentary life styles cannot be blamed for the epidemic of obesity currently plaguing this nation. Overweight Americans are now officially suffering from a of a medical condition.

The benefits from the AMA's decision are many. One benefit is removing the psychological burden of responsibility for being obese. "Identifying obesity as a disease may also help in reducing the stigma often associated with being overweight," said Joe Nadglowski, president and CEO of the Obesity Action Coalition. "Obesity has been considered for a long time to be a failure of personal responsibility -- a simple problem of eating too much and exercising too little," he said. "But it's a complex disease... we're hoping attitudes will change." Indeed. Changing attitudes is what the AMA's decision is really about.

Obesity is a significant problem in the U.S. There are more than than 93 million obese AmericansThe number is increasing. The problems caused by obesity are substantial. According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Tobacco is the first. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are linked to obesity. According to the CDC, sugary drinks alone are linked to 180,000 deaths every year in the U.S. Obesity-related health care expenses cost Americans between $147 billion to $210 billion per year. Preventing and treating obesity before it leads to more serious diseases could help reduce those costs

Another goal the OAC hopes to achieve through its decision is to change how obesity is perceived in the nation. The Obesity Action Coalition seeks to " ensure access to safe and effective treatment options and eradicate the negative bias and stigma associated with it" The most effective way to meet this goal Nadglowski believes is by liberating the obese from responsibility for their condition. Those 93 million obese Americans should be not be scolded for their poor dietary habits and lack of exercise. They should be treated compassionately as people suffering from a disease for which they are not responsible; as if the reason they super size their meals and go back for a second helping of pie is because they are somehow ill.

Like so many issues, obesity is first and foremost a personal one. One does not catch obesity any more than one catches alcoholism. Obesity is acquired. While in some cases there are physiological factors that can contribute to it, they are not the primary cause. The primary causes of obesity in the U.S. are diet and habit. The obese people you see regularly in the frozen food and snack aisles at Walmart are not suffering from a disease. They did not catch obesity.  They were not afflicted with it. The became obese after years of eating too much and exercising too little.

Treating obesity as a social issue is little more than a way expand government involvement in the personal lives of the public. It is individual  people who are obese, not society. It is those same individual people who are responsible for their obesity. The obesity "problem" is the result of putting all the obese people into one group. It is akin to stacking turtles in an effort to create an elephant. This has to be done if policy is to be formulated. Policy cannot be drafted for millions of separate individuals. It can only be drafted for groups. Social groups, however are merely collections made from people perceived to have common interest. What that interest might be is dependent the person making the group. Americans can be grouped ay number of ways. They can be sorted by income, gender, age, religion, occupation, social interests, sexual orientation, etc. Most of those groups intersect at many points. A person can fall into many groups. Recognizing the obese as a distinct social group is just an attempt to carve out a place for them at the table.

Despite the AMA's decision, obesity is not a disease. It's only analogy with disease is that it is a debilitating condition. With rare exception, obesity is an entirely avoidable condition that can be successfully overcome without medical intervention through diet and exercise, both of which I might point out are free. A more appropriate analogy would be to treat obesity as an injury to be treated by rehabilitation. Just as a person with an injury needs to learn how to avoid future injury by retraining himself and learning new habits, obese people need to retrain themselves and develop new dietary habits to avoid gaining weight.

Why we are spending so much money on studying and treating obesity is beyond me. We know what causes obesity, eating too much. We know how to treat it, diet and exercise. We don't need scientific studies to tell people what any high school gym coach can tell you: if you want to lose weight put down the doughnuts and Twinkies, get off your plump buttocks, and get moving. Over the years we have learned a great deal about the causes and effects of obesity. The one thing no study has so far been able to tell us is why so many people are indifferent to their weight. That is the real issue. The only thing all those studies have provided are excuses, explanations and an open door for government involvement.

We continue to waste time and resources trying to understand what should be common sense: if you consume more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you continue to gain weight, you will become fat. If you become fat, your health will suffer. But then again, the AMA's action wasn't about treating obesity at all. It was about changing how obese people are viewed and lessening the psychological burden obese people often carry along with their weight.

Enquiring Minds Want to Know

As I am sure most people are aware by now, a fertilizer plant exploded in West, Texas a few days ago killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 150. Most people are also no doubt aware of the massive devastation caused by the blast. Authorities and investigators are working diligently to discover what caused the explosion. But that is only part of the story being reported in the media. Judging from what I have been reading, that is not the most important part, at least as far as attracting and keeping the attention of readers and viewers is concerned. What is dominating coverage of the explosion are the personal details.

In following the story I have learned that Maggie Grmela, a dressmaker in West, sat dejectedly over a sewing table in her home with a yellow measuring tape draped across her shoulders unable to work on a dress she was making for someone. I know her reaction to the explosion. She thought an electrical transformer blew up. I know that her daughter  called her soon after the explosion and pleaded for her and her husband to get over to her house. I know that Maggie's daughter has children. I also now know that Maggies' husband is a member of the local Knights of Columbus. I know about the tense and emotional night the Grmela family spent together praying and watching TV for news. I also know about Mimi Montgomery Irwin. She owns a restaurant in West called The Village Bakery. The Village Bakery was founded in 1952. The going price for fruit kolaches at the Village Bakery is $1.50 The explosion knocked out the windows in her restaurant. I know about Corey and Dena Mayo. They own the local steakhouse and have two teenage children. Their 13 year old son Dalton told the reporter that his friend's dad died in the explosion. Then there is Ray Snokhous. He was born and raised in West. He went to law school and spent many years living in Houston where he worked as a tax lawyer before he retired and moved back to West 10 years ago. "I wanted to get back to my roots" he replied when asked why he returned. I could go on with many more examples but I do not want to weary readers recounting stories and facts they can easily find elsewhere.

None of those personal details shed any light on what caused the explosion in Texas or its aftermath. Neither do the details concerning the Boston bomber's mother, such as her taste in clothing and the hair styles she wore when she was young add anything meaningful to the story of the bombing in Boston. So why are they reported? They are reported for the same reason that personal details are reported in every significant tragedy. Whether it is news that the daughter of a woman gunned down during a crime had a scholarship to Dartmouth and wanted to be a architect when she grew up or that the father of boy killed had recently quit drinking and gotten his job back, the purpose of including such details in a story is the same. That purpose is not to inform the reader of any relevant facts. It is to stir the emotions of the reader. We are informed that West's director of emergency services had blood spattered on his face from injuries he sustained as he spoke with a reporter for no good reason. It was done simply to increase pathos in the story. Similarly, what light does reporting that Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's mother styled her hair like a "1980's rock star" and wore low cut blouses when she was younger shed on the bombing? Does knowing that she went to beauty school and did facials at a spa give us insight into her son's motives?

Most of the details emerging from the explosion in West are relevant. The hard work, the confusion, the frustration, the despair, the hope, the relief that loved ones escaped harm are all important parts of the story. But in themselves, they are not enough to keep the reader coming back. The facts must be embellished. Accounts of church services for the fallen are not complete without mention of the "grieving, hand holding, and crying" of the parishioners. Officials do not move from meeting to meeting. They scurry. Witness accounts of events are not enough. We must be introduced to the feelings of the witnesses. The loss of a home must be accompanied by the grief and shock of the owner as he beholds the ruins.

Stirring the emotions of readers has become a major preoccupation of the press. There are stories are written to evoke compassion. There are stories written  to evoke anger. A story about illegal immigration can be written in a manner to strike sympathy in the heart of a reader. A story about illegal immigration can also be written in a manner to strike indignation. It depends on which facts are presented, in what order, what light, and what context. A reporter dispatched to write a story on illegal immigration can interview hard working immigrants living a precarious existence while being abused by unscrupulous employers. That same reporter could instead focus on the crime, lost jobs, and financial burdens that often follow in the wake of illegal immigration. The choice is made on the basis of what response is sought in the reader. This goes a long way in explaining the difference between the liberal and the conservative press.

Is it important for readers in Oregon or television viewers in in Florida to know that the daughter of  a dead parent had just picked out her prom dress? Did the press really need to go to Dagestan to get a picture of the suspects' mother raising her hands in grief over the news of what her son did? Is it important for us to know that one of the dead was planning to retire in a few months or that another had a son serving in Iraq?  No, it isn't.  Such things add nothing to the story but pathos. Nevertheless, those are the things enquiring minds want to know. 

The Rest of the Story

In the contentious debate over same sex marriage, a great many Americans have concluded that people of faith who condemn gay marriage are missing the central point of Christ's teaching in the Gospels. Jesus did not come to condemn anyone they say. He came to forgive. Jesus does not hate. He loves. It has become common to mistake Christ's command that we should love and forgive everyone with the notion that sin should be overlooked. Christ intended no such thing. Yes, He told us to forgive sinners, but he never budged on sin. Sin was to be shunned. As Christ pointed out, He did not come to change the law "one jot", He came to fulfill  it. Yes, Christ forgave prostitutes, thieves, liars, fornicators, and tax collectors, but He did not require that society tolerate such things. He did not command that laws against adultery and prostitution be changed or say that they should be amended to bring them into line with prevailing public opinion. He certainly did not command that sin be tolerated. He commanded that sin be forgiven and sinners be loved, not that sin be denied.

What is frequently overlooked when extolling the mercy of Christ is that after Christ forgave someone for doing something, He told them to stop doing it. Equally overlooked is that in order for a person to obtain Christ's mercy he not only had to admit that he had sinned, but that he was in need of mercy. Jesus called on us to forgive those who have wronged us. He also made it clear that in order to be forgiven, people must acknowledge that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness. If you have been wronged, you obtain God's mercy by forgiving those who have wronged you. If you have wronged someone you obtain God's mercy by admitting your wrong and asking for forgiveness. In no instance is the wrong disputed. That is where religious progressives err. They confuse Christ's forgiving sin with Christ accepting sin. They confuse Christ's refusal to condemn a person for sinning with His refusal to judge that person. Both are fundamental errors in understanding Scripture. When Christ forgave the adulterous woman He did not do so out of any high minded notion of tolerance. He did not forgive her because He felt in someway that laws against adultery were misguided attempts to legislate morality. He forgave her because he loved her and because she asked Him for forgiveness.

Many faiths and denominations fancy they are expanding on Christ's teaching and fulfilling God's true plan for humanity. Like the Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov, they feel that Christ could have, and should have done a better job getting His message across. It was God' failure to be more clear and more realistic concerning what He expected from us that has caused the moral and ethical confusion that besets Christianity today. Religious progressives believe it is their duty to sort things out and reinterpret the Gospels in order to correct biblical oversights and bring the Gospels into accordance with modern sensibilities. After all, things have changed quite a bit over the last 2,000 years. There is no way those who wrote the Bible could have foreseen everything. Others are seeking to maintain relevancy in changing times by frequently editing their doctrine lest they be left behind by the public. They shed the ballast of orthodoxy in order to bob upon the waves and go wherever the currents of modernity take them.

Yes, we are charged to love our neighbors and forgive sinners. We are not called to tolerate sin. Christ forgave prostitutes but he did not condone prostitution. Christ forgave sinners but He also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Jesus offered mercy to everyone who would ask for it. However, one does not ask for forgiveness unless one recognizes that he needs it. One does not recognize he is in need of God's mercy unless he admits that he has sinned. One cannot sin unless there are sins to be committed. Naturally, if one does not consider homosexuality a sin, the matter of forgiveness is moot. In that case the task for religious progressives is getting the faithful to embrace, or at least tolerate, homosexuality. They take upon themselves the task of leading the ignorant and hateful out of the wilderness into the promised land of love and tolerance.

Those who assert God does not reject anyone are correct. God does not reject anyone. Neither does God call for us to reject sinners. It is sin we are to reject, not those who sin.The reason people find themselves estranged from God is because they reject Him. The strictures forbidding sin are for our benefit, not God's. The rules given to us are given in order to help bring us closer to God, not to keep us from annoying or angering Him. We do not harm God in the least when we sin. We only harm ourselves.

Christ did not roam the land strewing forgiveness like flowers upon everyone He came across. He told the world that God was willing to wipe the slate clean and give people a new start if they humbled themselves and asked Him to. He did not abolish sin. He came to offer forgiveness of sin because He loves sinners despite their sin. He still loves all men and He still offers forgiveness to everyone. But for forgiveness to be granted, it must first be asked for. That is the rest of the story.

Size Doesn't Matter

There has been some grumbling of late over how the U.S. Senate is constituted. The source of the grumbling is the allocation of seats in the Senate. Every state, regardless of population, gets two seats in the senate. One issue that has been causing resentment is the perception that the Senate can be subverted by senators from small states adept at obtaining federal dollars for their state far out of proportion to their population. "From highway bills to homeland security, small states make out like bandits" said George Washington University political scientist Sarah Binder. This is because every piece of legislation passed in Washington must have the consent of at least 51 senators. Most of those senators are from states with relatively small populations. Their job, like every senator's, is to make sure their state is tended to. It is with that in mind that they review legislation as it comes across their desk.

The item that is generating grumbling at the moment is small states have tended to vote republican while large states have been leaning more and more democratic. Exacerbating the issue is large states are getting larger. Their populations are growing, but their representation in the senate remains frozen. Frustration grows every time a republican senator from North Dakota (population 833,000) thwarts legislation proposed by a democratic senator from New York (population 19,570,000). Democrats feel they have the initiative due to their recent electoral victories. When their agenda is derailed by republicans in the senate they take umbrage. What they see is a group of senators elected by relatively few, largely rural and conservative citizens unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, impeding the will of the nation. This is a thoroughly modern, and I might say, uninformed point of view that can quickly be cleared up with just a little study.

Under the Constitution, the Senate was not designed to be the House of Representatives writ small. Every state, regardless of its population, gets two seats in the senate. That means Wyoming with its 576,000 residents gets the same representation in the senate as California with its 37,254,000. To a growing number of people, some of them politicians, it is unfair that large states are entitled to no more representation in the senate than small states. This is not a new concern at all. Indeed, it was a prominent point of contention at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Small states were concerned that under a system of popular representation, their low populations would make them vassals of the large states. More populous states felt that their higher population and more developed economies gave them greater stakes in any new government and believed that they therefore deserved greater representation. Giving each state two senators was a pragmatic concession made in order to obtain the consent of small states by assuaging their fears that they would be trampled by large states in a new union. (Prior to the ratification of the XVIIth Amendment to the Constitution, the selection of senators was delegated to state governments. The adoption of the XVIIth Amendment providing for the popular election of senators contributed mightily to the erasure of the distinction between popular representation and state representation). Large states, in turn, were calmed by ceding them greater presence in the House of Representatives where the preponderance of legislative power would reside. The people of the states were to be represented in proportion to their numbers in the House of Representatives. The states were to be represented as equal bodies in the Senate. The nation was to be represented by the president. It was not a perfect compromise, but it was good enough to satisfy the competing interests and get the Constitution ratified. The democratic ideal of "one man, one vote" had to be sacrificed in order to bring about the founding of this nation.

In his argument for the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison sought to allay concerns regarding the allocation of legislative power. He wrote in Federalist 62 that "No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence first of a majority of the people, and then with a majority of the states." Why would Madison have written that? Aren't the states simply groups of people? No, they aren't. At the time Madison wrote that, each state was a sovereign entity. To bypass the states and grant national legislative power to the people alone would diminish the power smaller states by undermining their ability to affect legislation in the new government being put forward. They risked being subordinated to the political concerns of larger states. The solution put forward by Madison was the creation of the senate. In the senate, all states were to be represented equally. Every state, no matter how large or how small, no matter how rich or how poor, would have two senators. The compromise was a "constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states." There was an added benefit to the creation of the senate according to Madison. The senate would serve to impede passage of bad legislation. No law or resolution could be passed "without the concurrence first of a majority of the people [speaking through the House of Representatives], and then of a majority of the states [speaking through the Senate]."

Without equal representation in the Senate, states with small populations would be in danger of becoming little more than provinces to be administered by federal government in Washington. Representation simply on the basis of population would leave states like New Mexico, Montana, and Idaho, with only token representation in Washington. The most populous states would be free to plunder the least populous. Without equal representation in the Senate, a handful of well populated states would dominate the nation and be able to impose their will and sensibilities on it. The fantastic growth in size and power of the federal government has made this an even greater danger today than it was in 1787.

Madison went on to write that the Convention had to sacrifice the principal of democracy to the forces of  what he called "extraneous considerations". We might call them "political considerations" today. He continued, "To the difficulties already mentioned, may be added the interfering pretensions of the larger and smaller states. We cannot err in supposing that the former would contend for participation in the Government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth and importance; and that the latter would not be less tenacious of the equality at present enjoyed by them. We may well suppose that neither side would entirely yield to the other, and consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by compromise." The compromise of splitting representation made possible the founding of the United States of America. It is that compromise that is being challenged in a struggle for political power by a growing number of Americans today.

Everything that is in the Constitution is there for a reason. People should make an effort to understand why a provision is in the Constitution before they start tinkering with it. A bargain was made in 1787. We are obliged to stick to it. As for me, I am more confident in relying upon the political acumen of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison than what passes for most political thought today.

Let's Hear it for NASCAR

U.S. Senator Cris Murphy (Ct) is angry. He is angry because of the upcoming NASCAR Sprint Cup race has been renamed the NRA 500. He is outraged. "NASCAR has crossed a line" he said. He called the decision by NASCAR to accept NRA sponsorship an affront to the victims of the Newtown shooting. He accused NASCAR of crossing a line and putting themselves "in the middle of a political debate". He stated that by accepting NRA sponsorship NASCAR will be giving the impression that NASCAR and the NRA are "allies in the current legislative debate over gun violence." Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But using the logic that NASCAR in some way endorses everyone and everything that sponsors a race or an event is preposterous. Insisting that NASCAR refrain from making deals with sponsors that some people find objectionable is censorship.

Senator Murphy's ire is selective. He has said nothing about the sponsorship of races by brewers and distillers. He evidently has no quarrel with NASCAR's Crown Royal 400 or its two Budweiser Duels. He is not disturbed by the image of cars speeding around a track at 200 miles an hour festooned with beer logos. He does not seem at all concerned about the association of fast cars, aggressive driving, and whiskey. Evidently, his concern for public safety does not extend to alcohol.

The carnage on our highways caused by alcohol is alarming. In 2010, 10,136 people were killed the numbers are frightening. 18 people die every hour in alcohol related crashes our roads. 2,000 are injured. Last year 708,000 Americans were injured in alcohol related crashes, 74,000 of them seriously. In fact, one American dies an alcohol related death every 48 minutes. According to the CDC, excessive alcohol consumption costs the U.S. $225.5 billion a year and is a contributing factor in over 75,000 deaths. 1.4 million drivers were arrested for DWI last year. As for our young people, alcohol related traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. According to MADD, alcohol abuse causes the deaths of 6,000 teenagers a year. 1 in 5 teenagers binge drink. A third of 8th graders have tried alcohol.One in three drivers will be involved in an alcohol related traffic accident in their life time. Ask any parent what they are more concerned about when their child pulls out of the driveway on a Saturday night, guns or booze?

There is a curious phenomenon when it comes to violence and murder in this country. If a drunken husband shoots his wife a gun, it is the gun that will grab the headlines, not the booze. It is guns that will be the target of public wrath, not alcohol. There will be demands that gun ownership be made illegal, not whiskey. Likely this is due to the fact that many Americans have experience with alcohol. They are familiar with it. They have used it. Many have at one time or another been drunk.

The irony here is that the typical American is far more likely to die or be injured in an alcohol related traffic accident than by gunshot. The first concern of a parent when they hand over the car keys to their child on a Saturday night is not that they will be shot, but that they will become involved in a traffic accident. Despite the spate of sensational shootings, the fact is, that unless you are involved in criminal activity or are in a relationship with an abusive lover, your chances of being shot are remote. The same cannot be said of automobiles. Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, when you take to the road you put your life in jeopardy. The steady drip of traffic fatalities only occasionally gains notice. They have become routine.

Despite the strict laws against driving under the influence, people continue to do so everyday by the tens of thousands. Where is the outrage over alcoholic beverages? Where is the protest about the sponsorship of racing teams by brewers and distillers? What better way to discourage drinking and driving than to advertise whiskey on a race car? Why aren't Heineken and Crown Royal held responsible when their products are used irresponsibly and people die? Why is it than even though alcohol is a contributing factor to countless crimes in the U.S., the blame rarely, if ever, falls on distillers an brewers? Certainly, most drinkers use alcohol responsibly, but most gun owners handle their weapons responsibly too. If a man shoots another dead in a drunken bar room brawl you can be sure it is the gun that is gets the headlines, not the whiskey. It is remarkable that Senator Murphy can be so moved by gun related violence and so wary of the message NRA sponsorship of a race might send yet mute when it comes to violence associated with alcohol.. Perhaps that is because. Then again, it is remarkable how much death and violence Americans are willing to accept at the hands of alcohol.

Then there are the social costs of alcohol. How many marriages are broken up because one of the spouses owns a gun? How many people lose their jobs because they hunt? How many women are beaten in a gun induced stupor? How many people die on our roads every year because someone owns too many guns? My guess is none.

There is no controversy of beer and alcohol sponsorship of sporting events because most people do not blame alcohol for violence. They blame the person who is drinking alcohol. Alcohol itself is only blamed tangentially, if even that. We expect people to drink responsibly. We expect them not to drive if they have been drinking. If they do drink and drive,we punish them. If they kill someone while driving drunk, we punish them severely. When there is a spectacular or gruesome crash in which children die due to a drunk driver there are no public calls to ban alcohol. There are only calls to tighten  laws against drinking and driving and enforce them more strictly.

To seek to ban the possession of firearms because some people use them criminally is akin to seeking to ban alcohol because some people drink recklessly. In both cases people die. Making alcohol illegal did nothing to make people more responsible or end crime associated with drinking. What it did do was foster a thriving criminal subculture. Making firearms illegal will not rid the country of gun crime. It will just make more criminals.

The great majority of Americans own guns responsibly, just as the great majority of Americans drink responsibly. We do not insist that sponsorships  by distillers and brewers be banned because some people kill others while under its influence. We should not seek to ban the NRA's sponsorship because some people kill others with firearms. The irony of seeking to ban the NRA's sponsorship of NASCAR while ignoring the ubiquitous alcohol advertisements on racing cars is completely lost on the anti-gun lobby. The NRA does not encourage or condone gun violence. Far from it. They advocate the safe and legal possession of firearms. They also provide courses and literature to help ensure the responsible ownership and use of firearms.

In any case, I hope to see everyone at the NASCAR Budweiser Shoot Out  race. Talk about the best of both worlds. We can talk about the Winston Cup then. You can be confident that no one will be shot at the at the Budweiser Shoot Out. You can be equally confident that people will get drunk and some of them will be driving home. To call the sponsorship of an auto race by the NRA an affront to shooting victims while turning a blind eye to the sponsorship of races by distillers and brewers is absurd. The NRA no more encourages murder than Budweiser encourages drunk driving.

Sponsorship is about business, not politics. This is a point increasing lost on a culture where everything has become political. We can only wonder how Senator Murphy would feel if Planned Parenthood sponsored a race.

The Scalpel or the Cleaver

As most are no doubt aware, Washington is in turmoil. The widespread tax increases and budget cuts agreed to by Congress and the president, known as the "fiscal cliff", are imminent. The harsh ramifications of the measures were intended to spur agreement on addressing the ballooning deficits rung up by the government over the last 12 years. The tax increases and budget cuts intended to motivate Washington to take the debt in hand have failed. We are teetering on the cliff.

Odds are we will not go over the cliff. The benefits of the "sequester", as the agreement is called, are slight. All that is gained is a modest reduction in the growth of the debt. That is a gain that will not improve the lives of Americans any time soon. Against that we have the consequences if the measure is ever allowed to kick in. Jobs will be lost. Services Americans have become accustomed to will be reduced or eliminated. Defense spending will be cut. Government workers will be furloughed. Our borders will become less secure. Medicare spending will be cut. Many other government programs will have their funding reduced. Given the choice between the theoretical good of reducing deficits over time and imminent pain, you can be confident that Americans and their elected representatives in Washington will decide that the present is more important than the future and will choose to avoid the pain.

What is frequently lost in the commotion over addressing the monstrous deficits our government has been running are the consequences of adding to the debt. The nation is preoccupied with the effects of the proposed spending cuts. This is understandable. It is human nature to pay little mind to the future. The present is real. It can be seen and touched. The future lies in the imagination. It consists of possibilities, not certainties. The country might go bankrupt or it might not. The economy could catch fire, or it could wind up in the tank. The consequences of the sequester, on the other hand, will be real. They will be felt concretely by those who have become dependent on government funds, whether directly, as in the case of those who receive money from the government such as contractors, farmers, and federal employees, or indirectly as in the case of those who sell things to people who are paid by the government. The benefits of cutting spending are abstract. They will only be realized in the future and even then indirectly in the form of a healthier economy. They are mere numbers representing money that no one will ever see.

Against this we have the creeping doom that is the national debt. As the debt rises, so do interest payments. Last year, the government ran its fourth consecutive yearly a deficit of well over $1 trillion and pushed the national debt to above $17.6 trillion. The interest paid on the debt last year was $296 billion.With every new dollar the government borrows, that amount goes up. That is what this is all about. Borrowing money is easy, well, it has been anyway. It is paying it back that kills you.

It is to be excused if many in this country have come to confuse the arguing over spending cuts and tax increases with attempts to address the issue that is the cause of all this turmoil, the growing national debt. The root of the problem is that for years the government has been spending far more money than it takes in. That is fine with many Americans. They are getting government at a discount.

Even though the imminent financial crisis in Washington has been averted, we have only gained a respite. Amidst the relief of the deal's passage, it needs to be pointed out how little was really achieved. What we have is a commitment to reduce deficits by roughly $4 trillion over the next ten years. Given that we have run trillion dollar plus deficits for six of the last seven years, we should hold our celebration. Even if the deal is adhered to over the next decade, and that is by no means certain, we will still be piling up hundreds of billion of dollars in new debt each year. Without the cushion of a surplus, one war, one market swing, one economic downturn, would erase the gains of the deal and put us right back on the brink of financial collapse. Then there is the ticking time bomb that is social security. Nothing has been done to stave off the crisis that will bring..

America is doomed to repeat this scenario over and over again in ever worsening ways. Even if Congress and the president cobble together a deal, as they most certainly will, that will only tide us over to the next budget battle. Unless things change and the government starts showing some black ink, we will eventually have to put away the scalpel and bring out the meat cleaver. Then we will not be facing cuts. We will be facing amputations.

In Fine Form

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama was in fine form. The president proudly listed his achievements. The war in Iraq is over. The war in Afghanistan soon will be. Osama bin Laden is dead. The housing market has shown improvement. The economy, though still weak, at least for the time being is no longer moribund. Justice and fairness have been advanced on all fronts. Homophobia is on the run. Yes, there have been missteps and failures, but the president cannot be blamed for those. If he erred, it was in wanting to do too much and help too many. Given the stubborn opposition to his policies by the GOP and the magnitude of the task he assumed, naturally he would fall short, who wouldn't?

The president admitted that the task of getting the economy up and running is, after four years, trillions of dollars, numerous policies, and countless speeches, an unfinished one. Nevertheless, he states that progress has been made, even if it has only been in "clearing the rubble" Presumably, he meant the rubble of the auto industry crisis and the Wall Street bailout. He did not mention that after four years in office unemployment in the U.S. is three points higher than when he took office or that the median household income in the U.S. has fallen over $4,000 from when he was sworn in in 2008. Neither did he mention the fact that the U.S. has added $4.8 trillion to the national debt under his first administration and is poised to add another $1.5 trillion this year other than to offer some vague words about getting it under control. All he offered were hope and bromides regarding America's greatness, endurance, and the ability to rise to any challenge. Some of the rubble left by President Bush may have been cleared but in its stead all we have are vacant lots.

The president has spoken regularly of "raising revenue", and the need for more government "investment". He can call it whatever he likes but taxes and spending by any other name taste just as bitter. Plans are regularly floated to trim the deficit but all Obama and the democrats have had to offer on the matter is a little pruning. Even if Washington is able to trim deficits, the crisis will continue to get worse until Washington can produce some black ink, and not just for a year or two, but for decades. Every drop of red ink adds to the debt and it is the debt that threatens to ruin us, not deficits. Every dollar paid in interest on the debt is money taken out of the economy and put in the hands of our lenders.

What abets Obama in this endeavor is that a great many people voted for him in disregard for the economy and the "state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant economy.  For most Americans, at least the 65.9 million that voted for Obama, the struggle over the debt is little more than a distraction being used by Obama's opponents to undermine his presidency.They have not yet grasped the implications of adding trillions more to the national debt. They have not yet felt its weight. They have not yet been asked to pay more and accept less. They have not yet been asked to prioritize their needs and identify what they can live without. They have not yet been asked to choose between a clean environment and safe food. They have not yet experienced the nightmare of an insolvent government and the economic calamity that would ensue.We have only record borrowing to thank for that.

In his speech, Obama was willing to accede to the fact that the government cannot continue to run deficits as it has been doing over the last four years, but he was unwilling to put forward any meaningful steps to address the problem other than proposing to increase revenue by raising taxes on the usual suspects and trimming unidentified waste. Naturally, the revenue would be generated by raising taxes on the "rich" and closing "loopholes" in the tax code. Even if he gets the increases he seeks, he will not get the $1.5 trillion he needs to balance the budget. He could take every dime from every billionaire and not scratch the debt. The tax increases required to cover the deficit would devastate the economy and likely spawn a rebellion. Neither will he find $1.5 trillion in waste to cut. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency that will fight to keep it. Despite his impressive oratory, all the president could offer were bromides to America's "greatness" and confidence in its ability to meet adversity and rise to challenge. We won WWII and put a man on the moon. Surely we will find a way out of this mess.

The reason it is so difficult for progressives to cut taxes and reduce spending is because either would undermine the power of Washington. Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without money, the power of government to control society is hobbled. The agencies, bureaus, and departments that oversee almost all activity in this nation would be impaired by reduced budgets. The ability to enforce their regulations and preside over their respective domains would decrease in proportion to loss of funding. Workers would have to be laid off. Enforcement would have to be cut back and prioritized. The funds distributed by those agencies would have to be reduced. That would result in less leverage in ensuring compliance with federal programs where funds are usually tethered to adherence to federal edicts. Without the threat of curtailing federal funding many state and local governments would be loosed from the need to comply. They might be hamstrung, but they would be free to conduct their affairs according to their own political circumstances.

The debt is a regular feature in the news, indeed it is the elephant in the room. The public might be distracted by social issues and calamitous events but the lingering issue in Washington at the moment is the budget. As grinding as budget negotiations are, there must be relief in the White House when a hurricane or blizzard hits for it gives the administration a respite from the struggle and gives it the opportunity to put aside politics and demonstrate why government is necessary and that it can help. But, let's assume Obama does get the money needed to keep our lenders at bay, would we be better for it? Would an additional $100 billion taken out of the economy to pay interest on the debt serve to improve it? Would $100 billion less in the hands of businesses and consumers stimulate the economy? Will simply paying interest on the debt get us out of our bind?

A key difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals do not trust the people of this nation to act in a manner that will advance society in its march to the future. Left to themselves, people will fritter away their money on things that they want rather than in a manner that will move society forward. They will buy new cars, new televisions, and new clothes. They will take trips and go to restaurants. They will stagnate in their ignorance and prejudices. They will turn a cold shoulder to the needy and the suffering. Without government prodding and guidance, society will slip backwards into ignorance, hate, and greed. That is what progressives seek to prevent through active government and social policy.

A great many people voted for Obama in disregard for the economy and the "state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant economy.  They were told that they had a choice of what kind of nation they want to live in. Many voters were enchanted by what another four years under Obama might bring. They voted for the chimeras of "social justice" "progress", and "fairness". Other voters were frightened by the prospect of being thrown to the wolves of Wall Street. They were convinced that only Washington could offer them protection against the vicissitudes of fate and then only if Democrats controlled it. They believe that, no matter how bad things get, democrats will never let them be mistreated, disrespected, or cast out in the street.

The reality is that there are too many people in this country dependent on government spending in one way or another and too many people stubborn in their belief that government can cure the ills that have been plaguing our nation since its founding for government to be cut in any meaningful way. Indeed, even after four years of record spending and a near historical expansion of government power and the meager results achieved by it, many are persuaded that what the nation needs is even more spending and more government. It is akin to believing that you fail to fix something with a hammer, the solution is to get a bigger hammer.

Obama won in in 2008 by running on hope. He won in 2012 by running on fear. While hope and fear are powerful rhetorical tools on the campaign trail, as a method of governance, they are a recipe for disaster. Emotion will not resolve the issues facing the nation. It certainly will not balance the budget. An emotional electorate is an irrational one. But then, only an irrational electorate would reelect a man who threatens to spend the U.S. into poverty.

It is reckless and irresponsible for politicians to continually put off making hard decisions in favor of temporary measures that fail to address the budget in favor of stop gap measures and financial expedients. By putting off tax increases and spending cuts we only buy a little time and, in the process, make matters worse as the debt mounts. Any politician that says that adding another trillion or two to the national debt will make things any easier in the future is either lying to you or woefully naive. Borrowing only makes good sense if it is believed that it will result in more earnings or if there is a reasonable expectation that you can pay it back in the future without exposing yourself to privation. Simply borrowing money without making any effort to change the circumstances that led you into trouble is reckless.

There are no plans in Washington to start paying down on the debt that are not based on speculation and assumption. The very best it can offer are plans to decrease the rate of its growth. Against the disturbing economic numbers we are offered only optimism and promises. It is predicted that the economy will recover sufficiently so that the government will once again have a surplus. It is promised that when that surplus arises, it will be applied to paying down the debt and lightening the burden being placed on tax payers. History tells us that neither scenario is likely.

By nature, government is preoccupied with expanding its control and increasing the resources at its disposal. Money is essential to both endeavors. Money and power are never willingly given up by government. They are only pried out of its hands. Progressives live by government. They will never willingly surrender power or the money needed to exercise it. That is why the debate in Washington is so contentious. It might seem that the struggle is over money, but it really isn't. It is about power.

Democrats consistently try to paint the GOP as a party of hard hearted men willing to sacrifice the poor to advance the interests of the wealthy while casting themselves as the party trying to help the common man. Republicans want to reduce spending and cut government programs in adherence to cold blooded economics well aware that the brunt of the cuts will be at the expense of those who rely on government.for their well being. Democrats assert that all they want is to want to help and protect those in need by expanding the power and reach of government, and the only way to do that is to spend money. If they succeed in casting themselves as the party that wants to give and republicans as the party that wants to take, they can't lose.