Though its still early in the campaign season, most of the major Democrat candidates for President have already released their five or ten point plans to cure all of our nation’s ills.  As usual, they all started by pitching their proposals for what is referred to these days as “national healthcare.” 

     But, despite all their claims to represent a new way forward, nothing they’ve said has been new.  In fact, each of their plans really just consists of the same tired ideas of the past.  The idea of compulsory health insurance provided by the state has actually been around for a long, long time.  Of course, in the early days pundits were still referring to it by its true name: socialized medicine.  

     Fortunately for us, the American people haven’t yet been tricked into supporting socialized medicine on the national level.  Still, every now and again its important to remember just why such a thing isn’t a good idea.  Here’s what a young Ronald Reagan had to say about early efforts to adopt socialized medicine:

      If you take a minute to listen, it’s remarkable how similar some of those bills he describes sound to the plans now being advanced by the Democrat candidates for President.  Just another example of how little politics changes. 

     Apparently, schoolchildren in Nigeria have been using the laptops to explore pornographic websites.  According to Reuters, a reporter from the official News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) found pornographic images stored on several of the children’s donated laptops.  I could be wrong, but that doesn’t sound to me like the kind of exploration the program was designed to encourage.

     The program is called the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.  It’s supposed to be an educational program aimed at helping students in developing nations.  They suggest that computers foster “learning by allowing children to ‘think about thinking,’ in ways that are otherwise impossible.”  And, at just $100 per computer, the laptops are heralded as a technological breakthrough. 

     I’ll be the first to admit that the OLPC is a well-intentioned and creative idea.  With so much work to do in such an underdeveloped corner of the world though, I can’t help but wonder if there aren’t more effective ways to encourage learning.  For example, for the same amount of money, we could try donating far more of another proven educational tool: the book. 

     Books are more than just cost effective too.  Unlike most internet websites, books are edited for accuracy.  Books don’t run on batteries and needto be recharged.  They don’t break and need repair.  And, most importantly given the recent news story, school children can’t access sexually explicit adult materials by looking in textbooks.  All things considered, books might make alot more sense. 

      I suppose books are too easy of an answer though.  They just don’t have the same pizzazz as $100 laptops.  So, OLPC program managers have instead chosen to outfit donated computers with new internet filters.  We’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes these kids to explore and express their way around the new restrictions.

     So far, I’ve used these blogs to criticize a few of those people who seem to have lost faith in our system.  I’ve focused on groups suggesting fundamental changes to our approach to government, arguing that everything we’ve done in the past has somehow been off target.  They’re some of the same people who apparently believe that our country may be past its prime and is starting a slow decline into the pages of history.

     With arguments like that around, it’s important for us to remind ourselves of our success every once and awhile so that we don’t let anyone talk us into abandoning our principles.  I’ll keep pointing out problems as I see them come up, because of course we do have a few problems.  In doing so though, I’m also going to point out all of those people trying to convince us that any problems we may have are proof that our system isn’t working.  The simple fact is that our system is working, and better than any other.  The problems that we do have are because of our own shortcomings, not the system’s. 

   As Americans, we enjoy unprecedented levels of freedom.  We have the luxury of choosing where we work and how we worship.  We have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves and our families.  We don’t have to worry about the police breaking down the door to our homes in the middle of the night without cause.  When we’re accused of a crime, we’re told the charges, given a trial, and a jury of our friends and neighbors decides if we are guilty at all.  And, as this blog demonstrates, we’re free to speak our minds – even when it means criticizing our leaders.

     Compared with the rest of the world, our system of government is extraordinarily stable.  A few years ago, when we had one of the closest presidential elections in history, there was no dissolution of the government, no gunshots fired, no screaming sirens signaling the arrest of members of the losing party.  Despite the current political division, there has been no coup like the one we saw in Thailand recently.  Unlike a few of our neighbors, there is no looming sense of unease about what will happen when a long-time dictator finally dies.  Our system is secure.  We hold elections every two years and we abide by the results.  No matter the outcome, Americans for the most part just go about their daily business. 

    We’ve been pretty successful too.  With a GDP of about $13.13 trillion, the U.S. has the largest and most powerful economy in the world.  We lead the world in advanced technologies, especially in computers, medical, aerospace, and military equipment.  Everyday in our country, more than 145.9 million people go to work.  The unemployment rate is only 4.5% - a rate most economists would call “full employment” –  and, even in spite of burdensome and costly regulation, the economy continues to grow at a rate of about 3.2%.

     All things considered, I’d say we’re doing pretty well.  In just 231 years, our system of government has been more successful than any of the many others that preceded it.  So, when we do run into problems, let’s just ignore all those folks that say we’ve been getting it wrong all along.  Instead, why don’t we just look and see what roadblocks have been thrown in the way of our tried and true system and get rid of them.  

     The University of Michigan-Dearborn is planning to spend about $100,000 to upgrade two student bathrooms on its campus. About a fourth of that money ($25,000) is going to finance new “foot-washing stations,” which the University claims are needed to accommodate Muslim students who ritually wash their bodies – including their feet – up to five times every day before prayer. I’m all in favor of cleanliness, but this idea is a little concerning.

    A spokesman for the school, Terry Gallagher, reportedly explained the policy by calling the new foot-washing stations “an accommodation to a significant portion of our student body and their friends and visitors in accordance with our mission.” It’s a good sound bite – even if it isn’t true.

     The U-M Dearborn mission is fairly typical for a modern college or university. They aspire to be a “student-centered institution committed to excellence in teaching and learning.” To get there, they try to be “responsive to the changing needs of society; relevant to the goals of our students and community partners; rich in opportunities for independent and collaborative study, research, and practical application; and reflective of the traditions of excellence, innovation, and leadership that distinguish the University of Michigan.”  That’s all well and good, but there’s an important piece missing if the mission is going to be used to justify these new renovations. You’ll note nothing in it that says anything about providing special accommodations to select students groups on campus.

     The driving force behind the renovations wasn’t fulfilling the school’s mission at all. According to Gallagher, the foot-baths are actually the result of “years of ongoing negotiations with the Muslim Student Association [MSA].” If you haven’t heard of them, the MSA is a national organization with more then 1,000 university chapters across the country. They’ve actually been the topic of a few news stories recently, most notably a 2004 article by the Chicago Tribue highlighting their ties to the international Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood helped establish the MSA back in 1963.

     If the MSA doesn’t ring a bell, the Muslim Brotherhood should. They’re the “world’s most influential Islamic fundamentalist group and an organization with a violent past in the Middle East.” With a reputation like that, you shouldn’t be too surprised to learn that they advocate for some very unpopular ideas here in the United States. For example, while most of us think of the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of American democracy, they preach that religion and politics cannot be separated at all. Instead, they believe that all governments should be Islamic. They also champion martyrdom and jihad as a means of achieving their goals.

     Alarmingly, the Chicago Tribune reports that the group currently has the United States in its cross-hairs. One of the Brotherhood’s goals is apparently to create an Islamic United States of America. They don’t plan on just overthrowing the U.S. government though. In fact, members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. Instead, their plan is to convince as many people as possible to convert to Islam, so that someday a majority of Americans will look past the Constitution and support a society governed by Islamic law.

     There is some good news. Ties between the MSA and the Brotherhood have supposedly diminished over the years. The Islamic Society of North America (the umbrella group for the Muslim Youth of North America and the Muslim Students Association) reports that, while the Brotherhood helped form both groups, their overall influence has now been limited.

     I hope that’s true, but it doesn’t exactly put me at ease. Even while ties to the Brotherhood have supposedly diminished, the MSA is currently attempting to create a new alliance – this time with another well known group: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In fact, coordination with CAIR is one of the main goals of the MSA’s new Political Action Task Force (PATF). That’s a curious development when you consider that CAIR membership has fallen by more than 90% in the last 6 years. The MSA is attempting to jump on board, even while most American Muslims appear to be abandoning ship.

     CAIR has some interesting affilitations too, and they’ve been the subject of some scrutiny themselves in recent months. Last year, group membership plummeted, falling from more than 29,000 members in 2000 to fewer than 1,700 in 2006. At the same time, their annual income from membership dues dropped from $732,765 in 2000, to just $58,750 last year. Curiously though, CAIR spending reached nearly $3 million last year. It’s not exactly clear where this extra money came from, but the New York Times has reported that at least some was from “donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments.” Apparently, international ties between all these groups haven’t dissipated as much as we’ve been lead to believe.

     With all of this going on, it sounds to me like we might have a much bigger problem on our hands than a few foot-washing stations on a university campus – although it might not seem that way to the students and Michigan residents who have to pay for them.

    I don’t think too many people would disagree that labor unions have made some positive contributions over the years.  There was a time when rapid industrialization forced unskilled workers to labor long hours in crowded, unsanitary conditions.  Unions helped to correct many of those problems using their most powerful tool – collective bargaining. 

     Union influence has been steadily declining since its initial successes though.  To be effective, labor unions rely on their ability to negotiate on behalf of a larger group of workers.  That’s hard to do when membership rates fall year after year.  In just more than 20 years, the percentage of employed wage and salary workers who were union members fell by almost 50% – from 20.1% in 1983 to just 12.0% in 2006.

   Paralleling this decline has been a change in focus away from the folks they represent and toward the realm of politics.  Here in Oregon, for example, SEIU Local 503 was the second-highest spender on lobbying among non-governmental entities in 2005.  What union leaders don’t seem to get is that when they stop focusing on change in the workplace and start trying to influence politics generally, they eliminate any incentive for workers to join. 

     The unions have come up with other means of attracting new members though (and keeping the old ones for that matter): political favors.  A good example came up just this past week in Salem.   A new piece of legislation, House Bill 3273, attempted to empower state weighmasters (the people who make sure heavy trucks are complying with state regulations) to use police warnings lights and sirens to make traffic stops on Oregon roadways. 

     The bill should have been dead from the start, particularly in light of the horrific death of a Marion County Deputy in a car crash just last week.  The officer killed was on his way to assist another agency, with lights on and sirens blazing.  Somewhere along the way though, he crashed head on with an oncoming vehicle.  If even a seven year police veteran – someone who was highly trained and who routinely engaged in high speed pursuits along Oregon roadways – could become involved in a serious car accident, then asking virtually untrained and inexperienced truck weighmasters to play police would just be inviting other highway deaths.

     The bill survived though, thanks mostly to strong support from the SEIU Local 503.  The bill doesn’t seem to relate very well to SEIU’s stated purpose of “winning better wages, health care, and more secure jobs for our communities.”  Why then would they support such a bill?  Well, your guess is as good as mine, but I’d point out that Motor Carrier weighmasters are all SEIU Local 503 members.  A little political favor giving them legal authority to play cops and robbers on Oregon roads might go a long ways in keeping union dues flowing in.  Lucky for you and me, the bill was finally tabled.

     There’s not just cause for alarm here in Oregon though – unions at the national level are adopting new tactics too. The Senate will soon vote on a bill already passed by the Democratically controlled House that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize.  The idea sounds innocent enough, until you picture how hard it would be to vote your conscience with a union enforcer standing over your shoulder.  Just imagine this:

     Unions may be a good thing for the country. In representing their members though, they should remember why they came about in the first place.  They’d do much better to focus on improving individual workplaces, and stay out of the halls of Congress and State Legislatures – though those places could use some improvement too.

     In their weekly radio address, Democrats called for “a new direction in energy policy.” What is this new direction? Well, a new Senate bill would apparently require automakers to increase the fuel economy of new cars, sport utility vehicles, and pickups beginning in 2020 to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. According to news reports, the average is currently about 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.

     Their goal is admirable. They’d like to “make America a global leader again in energy technology and get us off our over-dependence on foreign oil.” I think that’s something we can all agree on. America relies far too much on imported oil. Right now, imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. That’s just more money leaving the country to fill the pockets of foreigners. All too often, its going to fill the pockets of folks who aren’t exactly our best friends. For example, upplying 1.182 million barrels per day, Venezuela (home of our friend Hugo Chavez) is the fourth largest source of US crude oil imports. To turn around an old phrase, you might say we’re feeding the mouth that bites us.

     The proposed solution is hardly a “new direction” though. In fact, its not new at all. Fuel economy standards have been around since 1975, when Congress first passed the Engery Policy Conservation Act, establishing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. Responding to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, the Act was supposed to double new car fuel efficiency and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Like most government programs though, it had mixed success.

     Since 1975, fuel economy standards have gone through four phases. Initially, there was a rapid increase – possibly necessary to meet the new requirements. Then, in the late 1980′s, the rate of the increase slowed until it gradually began to decline. The decline continued through the mid-1990′s. Since then, we’ve had relatively constant fuel economy of about 21 mpg on average. In other words, even with the CAFE standards in place for more then 30 years now, we haven’t seen an increase in fuel economy since the late 1980′s – 20 years ago.

     Until recently that is. You might be surprised to learn though that it has nothing to do with government regulation, and everything to do with market forces. Rising gas prices have caused sales of gas guzzling, fuel-inefficient trucks and SUVs to plummet. In the last year alone, sales of the Ford Expedition fell nearly thirty percent, while sales of the Lincoln Navigator slipped almost fifteen percent. People are changing their purchase preferences in response to rising fuel prices. I’d bet that it won’t be long before we start seeing average fuel economy increasing too.

     Raising CAFE standards might create a short-term increase in fuel efficiency. But, just like the last time the Democrats tried the idea, that’s all the change will be: short term. The problem is the way they’re going about it. They’re mandating performance. All that does is force people to live up to the minimum level they need to scrape by the new standards – and then give everything they’ve got to make sure the standards stay low. Once people get to the mandated level, they have no reason to continue improving.

     To really create lasting and continuing change, regulators need to provide auto manufacturers with incentives to improve fuel efficiency. They need a reason to pursue it on their own. Lucky for us, the market is already doing just that. In response to rising fuel costs, people are buying more fuel efficient cars. Auto manufacturers are supplying them too. Don’t believe me? Just look at Toyota. It’s poised to become the world’s top auto maker “with its range of fuel-efficient cars which appeal to drivers concerned about mileage and pollution.”

     We can take heart in the fact that we’re seeing movement in the right direction even without direction from Washington. But, if Democrats really wanted to contribute, there is a role for government to play. They need to change their focus though. They should be focussing not on increasing regulatory burdens, but rather on finding common-sense, pro-market ways of creating change. As one practical thinker has suggested, government should “take advantage of a coming explosion in scientific knowledge and innovation by offering incentives that will direct this scientific progress toward our shared environment goals.” The author of that article suggests that one way of doing that is to “significantly invest in prizes as a competitive alternative to the current peer-reviewed process of scientific research.” For example, the federal government could offer prizes for the development of high-gas-mileage cars and other carbon reduction challenges.” That would mean doing things a bit differently though. Then we really would be taking our country in a new direction.