English Not Spoken Here

The discussion of making English the national language of the United States can cause many to think of discrimination. After all, America is a melting-pot of many nations. However, I agree with Benjamin Huggins’ blog National Dispute where he articulates the dumbing down of education to enable immigrants to stay inside their comfort zone can adversely affect American English speakers. This may be the land of opportunity; however, to succeed in any country, whether it's Germany, France, Spain, or the United States of America, it is important to learn the language spoken in that country. This is evident when you travel overseas, you must attempt to speak the local language to get around. This fact seems to be lost on some of those immigrating to this country, whether legally or illegally. This same lack of desire to learn English can be a factor in promoting segregation by pooling those that cannot speak English into a geographic area of a city which in turn furthers segregation by not promoting the assimilation into the American culture. This vicious cycle of inequality will continue as long as America placates other cultures by changing our culture to accommodate the inability to speak English. This doesn't mean those that immigrate to this country need to leave their culture at the footstep of America, rather they should embrace American ideals along with their own and blend them, after all, isn't the American dream one of the reasons they chose to come to America?

Playground bullies

After months of indecision President Obama has finally made a decision about Afghanistan. He has finally come to the same conclusion that others have long been saying and pleading with him to do - there is a need for more troops in Afghanistan so this war can be brought to a conclusion. This decision comes after spending much of his time campaigning for an election he has already won, traveling the world apologizing for everything American, and playing rounds of golf while decent hardworking men and women sacrifice to protect this country from those that have attacked us and wish to destroy us.

The fact that the President has exercised his constitutional authority of commander in chief has caused some to be upset. Some in Congress and some so-called grassroots organizations are pushing to end the war in Afghanistan now instead of sending more troops. While no one likes war, not even people in the military, these fringe groups believe we should turn our backs on the people of Afghanistan, a country that has a history of repression of freedom and killing dissenters. By not supporting the military and sending them the additional troops they need, we would soil the memory of those that have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country.

While I have no problem with disagreeing with the commander in chief’s decision, the idea that a group feels the need to reprimand someone for making a decision is akin to bullying. That’s what these groups and members of Congress do if you disagree with their ideologies; they bully you into submission to get their way. This latest form of bullying comes in the disguise of a “war tax” to pay for additional troops. While Congress suggests this would only affect those making more than $250,000 a year it is more like the playground bully extorting lunch money from others.

While making this decision may not have been easy, the notion that the President took nearly 3 months to review the request is disturbing and displays a general lack of understanding when it comes to military matters and foreign policy. While this necessary decision will boost the morale of the fighting men and women, it may not be popular with those that have a lack of understanding of military life and a desire to bully those with their opinions. It is the difficult decisions that build character, and make playground bullies cower because someone finally stood up to them, even if it took nearly three months.

Hate Crime Prevention

While I agree hate crimes are a horrible thing, unfortunately, the people that commit hate crimes are not going to stop because of a law. It is difficult to legislate morality because not everyone shares the same morals as everyone else. Those that are going to commit hate crimes are going to do it regardless of whether there is a law or not. Unfortunately the Hate Crime Prevention Act that was signed into law will not create a unified environment since those individuals that are going to commit a hate crime do not consider the ramifications of committing a crime. To them it doesn’t matter if there is a law or not. Humans have been discriminating against each other since the dawn of time and a law will not change that. True hate crime prevention should start in the home. Parents should take more of an active role in raising their children and teaching them how to be proper participants of society by raising their children to be accepting and tolerant of others. While this may not be a guaranteed way to prevent hate crimes, it has the potential to be effective by instilling in children acceptance for others, which will hopefully prevent them from developing the attitudes that lead to hate crimes. By having hate crime laws, it only attempts to be a criminal deterrent that puts the government in a position for being responsible for individuals and allowing parents to escape responsibility.

Reform at any cost?

Congress is in the middle of crafting legislation that will forever change how Americans obtain health insurance. Congress desires to legislate mandatory health insurance for everyone and how much providers are allowed to charge for their services. To accomplish this daunting task Congress wants to create a government-run insurance system which they say will foster competition in the health insurance industry. Congress also wants to punish individuals and companies if they decide they do not or cannot provide health care coverage by forcing them to pay a penalty tax. Additionally, Congress plans to abolish the practice of denying health care benefits to someone that has a pre-existing condition. While these might sound utopian in nature, the realization is this is anti-competitive and can lead to less choice for the American consumer.

Although Congress claims their health insurance reform plan will promote competition and allow millions of people to gain access to health care, the current state of health care reform making the rounds through Congress will hinder access to health care services, cripple innovation, and force health care providers to accept government-approved compensation. Government cannot force competition in a free market system and more often than not, government usually stifles competition and adds unnecessary complexity.

By creating a government-run health care system, Congress will add millions of new patients to the health care system. This influx of people will demand services from an already strained system. In addition to increased patient load, the health care system may suffer a decrease in health care professionals as providers are forced to accept lower compensation for services, resulting in fewer individuals willing to enter the medical profession. This will increase waiting times to see physicians and use other services. As supply decreases and demand increases, costs will begin to rise because it will take more professionals to handle the increased work load. Couple this with government regulated compensation, and current health care professionals could begin to reconsider their position.

As more people join the pool of government-sponsored insurance, insurance companies may feel forced to compensate for lost revenue by charging higher premiums to employers that continue to offer a health insurance plan. As premiums for private health insurance increase, employers will reconsider offering these plans and use the government-run health insurance system as an alternative. This will continue to add more individuals to the government-run system and increase demand further, inevitably leading to a monopoly by the government and a loss of all private health care insurance providers. This is not health care reform.

For real health care reform to happen there needs to be a fundamental change in how people view health insurance. Reform needs to start with the individual. Individuals need to take responsibility for saving money to pay for office visits to minimize the use of health insurance and instead maintain a low cost hospitalization and catastrophic plan. This is how things were done for years prior to the introduction of HMOs. How many people actually know the difference between HMO, HMO+ and PPO? It is this failure to understand how your health care insurance policy works that can lead individuals to make decisions regarding their medical care without fully understanding how their decisions will affect their pocketbook.

For Congress to properly reform health care it doesn’t take over 1500 pages. Meaningful health care reform can be done by allowing individuals to shop for insurance across state lines. This will allow for more competition by creating a larger pooled of insured. This larger pool spreads the risk to more people which can help keep prices down. It also doesn’t take 1500 or more pages to exclude pre-existing conditions. It’s possible to cover pre-existing conditions in as little as 53 words – “A health benefit provider may not deny or impose any limitation of coverage based on any medical, physical or mental condition the insured or potential insured currently has or had prior to enrollment in the a health care benefit or insurance coverage, application for benefit of coverage or renewal of benefit or coverage.” While Congress’ plan to reform health care is well-intentioned, good health care reform requires action at both the individual and government level: individuals need to take responsibility for understanding how their plan works, while the government needs to focus on creating healthy competition rather than a monopoly.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses…

Small towns are a great place to grow up. They are full of hard working people that tend to have a sense of community pride. I played sports during my school years, and even rode in the bed of a pick-up truck during the town 4th of July parade. We sang the National Anthem before all sporting events, and we recited the Pledge of Allegiance before school started. I don’t know if it’s still this way, but from what I can tell when I go back, not much has changed. I have since left the small town for the call of the big city. I didn’t go to school in the city, but talking to friends that have kids, it’s not exactly the same as a small town. This doesn’t mean the city is less patriotic; it means the city values things differently.

Big cities tend to be overflowing with cultural diversity that you can’t find in small towns. In the article “Obama Pulls A Palin, But Media Doesn’t Care”, by Tommy De Seno, the author points out that Sarah Palin suggested she likes small towns because they are more like “Real America”, and she attributes their patriotism to their character and not their race. The media and liberals were infuriated with the idea that Sarah Palin would claim small town America is more patriotic than the urban metropolis. De Seno suggests this is because liberals and the media believe small towns tend to be white America and lack racial diversity.

However, the same media and liberals were not so offended when President Obama made a racially laced comment for his argument on why Chicago is the greatest American city. When Obama proclaimed his preference for Chicago because of the diversity of its people, he made a point to identify race as the leading factor. Where was the uproar, the author argued? De Seno believes President Obama’s comments were obviously more about race than Sarah Palin’s comments, but no one was upset.

The problem with De Seno’s argument is the way he polarized the view of both comments; either they are about race or they are not. This extreme view seems on par coming from De Seno, given the fact that he is a lawyer that spends his time dissecting what others say in order to find hidden meaning. I find this polarization harsh as both comments are taken out of context by both the media and De Seno himself.

I agree with De Seno’s assertion that Sarah Palin’s comments are about the character of people in small town America and have nothing to do with race. However, I disagree with his opinion that Obama’s comments were solely based on race. Yes, it is correct that Obama commented on the racial diversity of the city of Chicago; however, the comments were meant to imply that it is the cultural diversity of the city that makes it great, and this is something that we as Americans believe in.

To avoid misinterpretation, liberals and the media should learn to truly listen to what someone says instead of picking out what they want to hear, and conservatives should listen to that childhood adage, “sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never harm me.”

A New Form Of Income Redistribution

All too often we find ourselves caught up in agreeing or disagreeing with a policy based solely on principle without fully understanding the extent of the policy. The opinion piece, "Health ‘Reform’ Is Income Redistribution", in The Wall Street Journal by Michael O. Leavitt, Al Hubbard and Keith Hennessey paints a picture of how health care reform is another way to redistribute wealth. The authors have worked in areas of government involved with health care and economics, which affords them valid insight into how proposed legislation might affect the public. The authors’ attempt to persuade the reader in agreeing with their opinions relies on an acceptance of three key requirements of health care reform: “guaranteed issue”, “community rating” and “individual mandate”. To support their argument the authors use a scenario where the government requires you to purchase fire insurance while your house is on fire at the same rate it would be if your house wasn’t on fire. Their argument is that under this policy, most homeowners would only purchase fire insurance while their house was on fire. While there is little to no hard evidence that would support the authors’ argument for why health care reform would only redistribute wealth and create an incentive for individuals to not buy health insurance, their argument is based on sound logic and a believable analogy. This lends the reader to concur with the authors that health care reform is a form of income redistribution, applying a tax on a group that tends to be healthier and historically makes less income and giving it to an older, ailing generation that makes more money.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

How often do we believe in something so strongly that we are willing to do what it takes to get our point across? Representative Joe Wilson believes so intensely that President Obama was lying about proposed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to get free health care that he unwisely yelled out “you lie” during the President’s attempt to persuade Congress to pass health care reform. It was not the time or the place to display personal disapproval; however this hasn’t been the first time, by either party, or the last time it will be done. Today the House of Representatives passed a resolution of disapproval for Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst. Although the majority of Congress disapproves of Representative Wilson’s actions, a significant portion does not believe these actions warrant a resolution. Representative Wilson apologized to President Obama and it was accepted. This should be the end of it; however in a constant game of one-upmanship the Democrats pressed the issue and pushed for the resolution of disapproval. As children, we are all taught the simple lesson of apology and forgiveness. This childhood lesson seems to be lost on the reigning Democrats. In Washington, hypocrisy reigns supreme and those in glass houses should not throw stones.