Ben Chavis has now taken his education model public, after turning around AIPCS, turning it around with family, good books, good teachers, a back-to-basics focus, structure, discipline, high expectations, a taste of free market capitalism, accountability and his unique disdain for educational orthodoxy: “Multicultural specialists, ultraliberal zealots, and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply [for teaching jobs].” But success was not foreordained for his school. In fact, it was just one vote away—within days of Dr. Chavis taking over as principal—from being ordered closed by the school board. I invite you to follow his rescue and recovery, as he replaces a broken faculty, and fixes a dysfunctional curriculum, and imposes structure and discipline on a school without either. On his journey, Dr. Chavis will take away student computers and refuse to offer the federal school lunch program. He will take mirrors out of the student restrooms and require students and parents sign contracts. He will emphasize perfect attendance for all students, paying students at year end if they have zero unexcused absences, and his attendance rates will climb each year from around 65% to about 98%. He will require teachers focus on teaching language arts (reading, writing, grammar) and math each class day, allocating 90 minutes to each subject. He will adopt an educational model that focuses on the student, requiring approved texts, retaining only quality teachers, administering a program of accountability with an emphasis on rewards for achievement and punishment for misconduct.

And during that time, gradually building on success, his middle school’s performance results will slowly climb from subterranean levels to the top of the performance charts, reaching the magic 800, the benchmark of excellence on the California Academic Performance Index, subsequently with breakneck speed the scores climb above 900, distinguishing the school as one of the top 10 in the state, garnering national recognition for his Oakland school. And along the way he sets Olympian goals for his students. Eventually, he expands his model, adding an AIPCS high school and a second middle school in Oakland: both schools continuing to excel.

It is a redemptive journey and there are now AIM-Ed (AIM to Educate) models of Dr. Chavis’ program being replicated in CA and elsewhere in North America. Besides the story about turning around a troubled, dysfunctional school, this book is also an intriguing story about the life of Ben Chavis, a North Carolina Indian, a story about how he came to challenge just about every politically correct, educationally popular elixir in education today. Mr. Chavis learned from his own life lessons what works: focus on teachers in the classroom—eliminate the bureaucracy and ancillary staff positions; focus on teacher-student relationships—require that a teacher be assigned to the same middle school class for all three years and emphasize core subjects; and focus on discipline—breaking down students that are discipline problems and building them up again. And Dr. Chavis blends all of these ingredients into an educational philosophy that works—works with exceptional results, at both the middle school and high school level.

And when you read this book, you will cry the next time you read about the chaotic, inner-city schools with their 50% flunk-out rates, with students graduating who cannot read, and with the huge waste of so much talent. And when you think about what these youngsters from Indian, Asian, and Hispanic poor families in Oakland accomplished, you might just wonder if the education lobby—consisting of too many left wing fantasy ideologists—is so committed to its religious orthodoxy that it would prefer the current school model over academic justice for students? Would they really prefer a model that just keeps plodding along with more failure over a school system that is successful beyond their dreams? In fact, a model that is so successful that every child in the first high school graduating class takes AP calculus and AP literature, 100% of the 2008 - 2009 seniors are accepted to four-year colleges and universities, and every middle school gets test results placing the class in the top 10 in the Academic Performance Index in the State of CA. And if they would prefer dogma over academic justice, then finally we will know that for some: the schools exist for everyone but the students.

And despite a hint of disapproval from Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, October 8, 2009, as he played a clip of the interview with the two ladies singing a song of love to our President for his generosity, stash is actually a pretty accurate term for the “urgent” dollars fleeced from other Americans or their grandchildren in the name of the President’s emergency Stimulus Bill. And in a related report, Rush even spoke approvingly of the “two entrepreneurs” outside Cobo Hall, described by news reports as scam artists, offering to sell readymade applications for $20, Rush expressing a touch of relief and pleasure knowing that the entrepreneurial spark is not dead, even in Detroit.

Apparently, there were no shovel ready jobs for the able bodied in line so they could retain their self respect and earn their checks. Nor was there likely any thought by the White House of tackling the 50% inter-city teen unemployment by lowering the minimum wage for teens and those taking their first job, creating a way for teens to work and contribute rather than take a hand out, opening up opportunities for local businesses to hire an untrained worker at a salary that better reflects the workers lack of skill, and training, and education, and preparedness to comply with the social requirements of a first job.  

Of course the whole idea of our President and the federal government playing Robin Hood was alien to the founders, Mr. Madison remarking: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Two economic reports last week confirm the worst fears of many Americans about the economic acumen of the Obama administration: the Thursday, October 2, declining auto sales report, auto sales plunging by 23%, sales for General Motors crashing 45%, sales for Chrysler collapsing 42%, the report corroborating the concern of critics that the billions spent for clunkers was as bad as any junkyard sale, stealing future sales, exacerbating conditions in an already weak economy reeling from trillions of dollars of spending by the Obama administration, and the Friday, October 3, 2009, Unemployment Numbers, rising to 9.8 percent in September, as employers cut 263,000 jobs, a 26 year high, setting the worst record since 1983, further persuading many Americans that the President’s Stimulus Bill is as ineffective as a committee of Washington politicians trying to write a piece of legislation in plain English.

And as the trillions of dollars of debt pile up, debt as wide as the prairie and as high as the heavens, both the Stimulus Bill and the Cash for Clunkers Bill add to a growing awareness that the President and his team are drifting aimlessly without a Captain at the helm, without a navigator, without anyone who knows the water or can chart a course to a sound economy, or as Vice President Biden aptly put it—we guessed wrong.

The question today is whether or not the President’s dismal loss in Copenhagen, a first round blow-out, garnering a meager 18 of 94 votes, a shellacking seldom experienced even by the hapless Mets, puts Mr. Obama in a decision box, a box limiting his options, requiring him to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal, troops the General says are needed if we are to avoid losing the war, denying the President the option of either kicking the can down the road again with a half-measure decision, or walking away from Afghanistan and ordering a total withdrawal of all troops.

In fact, the International Olympic Committee shutout just about requires that he neither pull out as his left-wing base desires, nor that he follow the advice of the Vice President, Mr. Biden apparently arguing for an offshore approach with a reduced force structure, a move strikingly reminiscent of a present vote, a delaying tactic, a move that must surely be attractive to a President in love with the idea of not taking a stand, of not making an either or choice: all in or all out.  

Whether you consider the Copenhagen junket a huge loss of face, on the scale of an 8.2 earthquake, or just a minor tremor, a quivering that removes the thrill from Chris Matthews’ leg, but otherwise passes quickly, Mr. Obama cannot afford to be tagged repeatedly as a “LOSER.”

And another “LOSER” tag is on deck as the Obama administration began talking with the Iranians this past week, looking for ways to walk back their nuclear ambitions, to reset their pell-mell march towards their promised destruction of Israel and the ushering in of the 12^th imam. The smart money expects the Iranians to talk and talk until their bomb is fully operational. Since President Obama has already taken so much off the table it is, arguably, only a matter of time, unless Israel strikes, until Iran has a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama has frequently asserted, however, that Iran would not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb, but such an eventuality is all but built into the game, and when it occurs it will be STRIKE 2 for the President: “LOSER.”

Meanwhile, a game-changing decision is needed in the Afghanistan war, and pulling all troops out of Afghanistan seems to be the President’s preferred position, but a withdrawal at this time would be a clear loss of “the real war,” unlike the diversion in Iraq as Mr. Obama called that conflict. And if the former junior Senator from Illinois rejects the request from General McChrystal for 40,000 more troops, it would be STRIKE 3 for the President: “LOSER.”

Iran and Afghanistan represent clear losses, losses potentially more existential than a failed Olympic bid, a bid where the IOC boots your city in the first round, losses possibly tagging him as a serial loser, perhaps beginning a death knell for his candidacy, ending any cooperation from blue dog democrats, a rallying cry for opponents, a demoralizing strike on Democrat efforts to recruit candidates for the next two elections cycles.

The President’s loss in Copenhagen makes it more likely he will reject any signal of failure in Afghanistan, assuring that he will send the General an additional 40,000 troops, committing him to a counter-insurgency strategy and a protracted war struggle. And so, the President will reluctantly grant the General’s call to add more troops, following LBJ into the abyss—and if he doesn’t do something quickly to fix his draconian Rules of Engagement Afghanistan could turn out worse for him than Vietnam did for LBJ.

What should President Obama say this week to a joint session of Congress about health care reform? Should he repeat another version of his previous “111 health care speeches, interviews, and press conferences in which he’s talked about health care?”Should he send Hillary to Russia to get back the “reset” button? Should he try something else?

Judging by remarks from commentators, if President Obama doesn’t try something else, his message on health care reform won’t persuade. Mark Steyn in The Omnipresent Leader criticizes President Obama: “the more he opens his mouth the more the American people recoil from his ‘reforms.’” And in Obama the Mortal, Charles Krauthammer observes the President’s decline: “The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic.” And Peggy Noonan in Coruscating on Thin Ice declares Mr. Obama has lost the trust of the center: “But the great mass of Americans, the big center, will, I strongly suspect, not be listening. Mr. Obama has grown boring. And it's not Solid Boring, which is fine in a president and may be good. It's sort of Faux Eloquent Boring, especially on health care.” Eventually, everyone on board —even movie goers at this White House—knew the Titanic was going down. President Obama cannot afford to do more of the same—he must try something else—when he speaks to Congress.

 How could the President change course—turn the ship of state—and fundamentally reset his health care reform goals? One way is to take some basic assumptions and reverse them. In his books, Cracking Creativity and Thinkertoys, creativity expert, Michael Michalko explains that by reversing assumptions you broaden your thinking, you change perspective, you often see answers to problems that were not obvious before. 

When Alfred Sloan took over General Motors on the verge of bankruptcy, he reversed some assumptions. At that time, Michalko says the assumption was that “you had to buy a car before you drove it.” But by reversing the assumption “to mean you could buy it while driving it,” Sloan pioneered the concept of installment buying for car dealers. Michalko notes, “Many creative thinkers get their most original ideas when they challenge and reverse the obvious.”

Two of the key assumptions President Obama has been clinging to during his health care reform campaign are that reform needs to be comprehensive and that it can be paid for by taking money from Medicare.

But does health care reform need to be comprehensive? Why can’t the White House reverse the assumption? Why can’t Mr. Obama pursue a series of actions? Why can’t he achieve closure through a series of small wins, building a coalition as he goes along, gaining the confidence of the opposition, enhancing his power to persuade? Why not begin with issues like portability of insurance or an authorization permitting the purchase of medical insurance nationwide, issues where he should be able to get a majority of Republicans to join him?

Part of the “power to persuade” is as old as Aristotle; it is the ethos of the speaker. The President’s poll numbers more likely reflect that the President has lost the public trust than that the public doesn’t understand the health care plan. Health care is too important to have a two-tier discriminatory system. The elderly should be cherished as national assets, not given a “blue pill” and told to take one for the Gipper!  Reverse the assumptions: America can spend more and we can keep our promise to provide quality health care to the elderly—does anyone really believe the cash for clunkers program is a better expenditure of taxpayer funds than 5 more years for granny?

Judging by his declining approval numbers during August, a reset should certainly be considered. In fact, in a recent column, It’s Time for Obama to Change Course, blogger Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics argued that the declining poll numbers threaten the President’s “power to persuade.” And if he wants to advance new health care reforms through Congress, then he needs a course correction. His first recommendation for the President is for him to recognize that “the Cheese stands alone,” alone on the mountain top he stands, and he must act accordingly. Even if it is unpopular with those around him; the call is his alone to make. He has to take charge. He has to chart a course.

 If we just focus on this idea for now that the President has to lead even if advisors or supporters are not completely happy, then how might the President change course? What might the President do if he wanted to recapture the center? What would a fundamental shakeup look like?

One suggestion, by Cost, would be for the President to adopt some of his campaign rhetoric. Following up on that suggestion, the President argued as a candidate that sacrifices—yes, sacrifices—would be asked of everyone. Why not reverse the current assumption that Congress, the unions, and trial lawyers are off limits in the health care debate?

Why not begin by asking the political class to lead by example—a time honored tradition in our military—by announcing that there will not be a two-tiered system? That any reform will apply equally to Congress and the President—and if Congress likes its current health care system and wants to keep it, then they must pass similar coverage for all Medicare recipients. 

The unions were among the President’s biggest supporters. If they won’t sacrifice to help him, why should anyone else agree to inferior care or less care than they currently receive? If our private health spending is “too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance,” the President should urge Congress to close the current health-insurance exclusion even if the unions “are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy.”

Trial lawyers were big supporters of the President. But needless medical procedures ordered merely to inoculate physicians from litigation are a large part of our health care costs. Why can’t punitive damages, designed to punish a plaintiff for misconduct, be awarded to a government owned trust fund to pay for Medicaid rather than being distributed as a windfall to a plaintiff? Congress could set a 20% compensations rate for lawyers pursuing punitive damages in egregious cases, recognizing their contribution to the public interest.

A fundamental shake-up that shows real leadership might help the President gain the confidence of voters, restoring his credibility and “power to persuade,” garnering him a second chance to see health care reform succeed.

There are many translations of The Consolation of Philosophy (The Consolation), the influential classic written about an imaginary conversation Boethius has with Lady Philosophy while awaiting his execution. So why read Fortune’s Prisoner? How is it different? How is it better?

After reading a translation of The Consolation of Philosophy by David R. Slavitt, in the original style of prosimetric text (alternating prose and verse), I turned to this James Harpur edition offering a collection of just the thirty nine poems. And I am glad I did.

There are several good reasons to purchase this book in addition to a translation of The Consolation. The poems stand together as a complete work by themselves. They are thoughtful, and they are beautiful. Additionally, the author has added several features that I found contributed to a better understanding of the text and verse. First, Appendix II has an excellent overview of each of the five books of The Consolation. Additionally, Harpur gives each of the verses a title, helping the reader to focus on a key idea covered in the poem, and thus meets his stated objective “to suggest the poem’s theme and provide a little orientation.” Furthermore, most of the verses include one or two epigraphs taken either from the verse itself or from an outside source. I enjoyed these thoughtful quotations, and I found they also furthered my understanding of the theme and my enjoyment of the verse. Further, I believe they met the objective of the author: to demonstrate that “Boethius was part of a philosophical and spiritual tradition extending backwards and forwards from his time: indeed ... He preserved and transmitted this tradition.” Fortune’s Prisoner is well worth your consideration.

Education’s End by Anthony Kronman, former Dean of Yale Law School, is an excellent analysis—I highly recommend it—of a critical issue that affects the framework of American society. A thoughtfully planned and carefully balanced argument about the role of the humanities in education, Education’s End exposes the current shortcomings in higher education. For Kronman, the big rocks—the things of value—in education are the questions: What is the meaning of life? How should we spend our time? How can we succeed in the art of living? For much of our history U.S. education included the big rocks; they were part of a college education. Today, this is no longer true.

Kronman reviews what he believes to be an unfortunate path traveled by higher education in the U.S., breaking down the regrettable history into three eras. First, during the antebellum era beginning with the opening of Harvard University, there was a focus on God, a Christian perspective, and an emphasis on “the ancient model of virtue and order.” Second, during the era of secular humanism following the Civil War, there was a focus on family and country, and an emphasis on “modern ideas of individuality and creative freedom.” And third, during our modern era, there is a focus on political correctness and the research ideal. The research ideal places an emphasis on research that restricts scholarship to a narrow field of specialization, and it requires publishing something new with the understanding that any contribution will be superseded.

Chapter 3 (The Research Ideal) is excellent, but Kronman is really just beginning his critique. In Chapter 4 (Political Correctness), he skillfully, but tactfully, slays the three-headed monster of modern political correctness: diversity, multiculturalism, and constructivism (post modernism). After explaining why the natural and social sciences are better able to survive in the current environment, he peels away the layers of misguided intentions that appear to support political correctness exposing the problems for the humanities. For example, discussing why multiculturalism is unacceptable, he explains how “an internal dialogue” carried on by each succeeding generation of thinkers and authors throughout western history offered a unique teaching opportunity that is unavailable in other cultures. Highlighting the weaknesses with each aspect of political correctness, Dean Kronman argues that the status quo short-changes teachers, denies students, and deprives society of a value previously enjoyed during the era of secular humanism.

 Kronman’s arguments are frequently understated, but this book is nothing less than an indictment of how the humanities are taught today: we prepare students for careers, but not for life. Also, he does more than just lament this failure today to ask the big questions. He blames the academy for abandoning a trust respected during the era of secular humanism that it carried forward until the 1960s, keeping alive a continuity—through the humanities—of teaching a curriculum that reached back to the classical era. He explains that this tradition of arts and letters continued a legacy that allowed students to see themselves as a participant in the “great conversation.” As part of that squandered inheritance, Kronman notes the diminished role of the humanities in education today. In the past, humanity teachers felt qualified and confident enough to guide their students through questions about the meaning of life and about how to spend their lives. Unfortunately today few, if any, humanities professors feel it appropriate to ask or instruct on the big question.

When left-wing activists attended Bush functions they shrewdly waited their time before beginning their planned performance: getting attention, throwing the speaker off track, interrupting the speaker merely for the purpose of creating chaos.

But consider the Town Hall protesters; they don’t behave as the Code Pink or anti-war groups did at Bush functions. The Town Hall participants are responding to something that was said by their government representative. The Town Hall meetings are interactive. If Kathleen Sebelius or Senator Arlen Specter say something stupid, disingenuous, or untrue, the crowd shows its disapproval. If a member of the audience says something to Congressman Brian Bard that others agree with, the crowd shows its approval. These are not rent-a-crowd protesters merely acting out just to disrupt. They are citizens who made time to attend. They are voters who feel strongly about the subject. They are constituents who are insisting they be part of the dialog. And the large majority of them were not sent by anybody. They see $9 trillion in debt over the next ten years. They hear arguments for a health care plan that don’t make sense. And they want to understand, and they want to be assured that Congress and the White House won’t make it worse.

Instead of hiding from the folks by retreating to telephone conferences, or cancelling public appearances one day and then slipping in an unscheduled union supported choreographed event the next day, or disparaging constituents, representatives should hold more Town Halls. They should engage in more interactive participation with voters, and they should forget busing in the rent a crowd to artificially “balance” an event.

Representatives have to realize those attending have concerns, concerns felt deeply. And as a member of Congress they do not have much trust in their portfolio with voters; in fact, they rank lower than the neighborhood used car salesman. Politicians should recognize the Town Halls for what they are—the current Town Halls are more like the opposition in the British Parliament responding to a speaker: loud, sometimes raucous, and sincerely serious. The “ruling class” needs to talk to the people in their district, and present their case, and persuade them of their position, if they can.

Democrats should not cavalierly dismiss the Town Hall participants unless they want to be voted out of office because they have lost touch with the pulse of America.

President Obama apparently promised—“YOU WON'T BE WAITING IN ANY LINES'—at Portsmouth, N.H. on July 11, 2009. But by every conceivable metric, we see no reason to be sanguine about his ability to deliver on his promise. We see only a shrinking number of physicians. Reduced physician compensation plans for Medicare in the reform bills (increasing the health-care wedge) and other changes will inevitably make the practice of medicine less attractive to foreign trained doctors who presently immigrate to the U.S.; to foreign trained students graduating from U.S. medical schools that currently remain here to practice medicine; and to college graduates contemplating graduate school. In short, with the contemplated reform, where will the doctors come from if Congress is to keep the President’s promise—no waiting in lines?

How can you avoid delays, rationing, and a less than compassionate government system if you don’t first set a goal to increase the number of physicians? As a practical matter, I believe that any medical reform that fails to first address physician shortages will fail to capture the confidence of a majority of Americans. For example, Deroy Murdock (Government Medicine Kills) reported the following about waits in Canada:

In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.

 France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

…

In France, "If you are in medical care for the money, you'd better change jobs," says Marc Lanfranchi, a general practitioner from Nancy, an eastern town. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper.

In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked France first in a one-time study of the health-care services of 191 countries. The U.S. placed 37th.

To recruit doctors our military has long had a medical education program. Upon graduation the doctor is required to serve on active duty for a number of years. Why can’t Congress create a program to fund medical school and malpractice insurance for those who commit to accept Medicare, Medicaid and public option patients for a set number of years? Why not a goal to at least double the number of providers, thereby ensuring an increased number of providers who will willingly accept patients covered through government programs?

Thank you for your email regarding your work on Health Care Reform. I have a few thoughts, comments, and questions for you.

1.      I hope your Health Care Reform Bill extends the same medical coverage to our veterans that it does to members of Congress. After all, despite the attacks you sustain from the press corps, our troops overseas are dying or returning with real injuries.  I am sure you would agree that it would be unconscionable for any Congressman to vote for coverage for himself and then to vote to treat veterans differently.

2.      a. In “The Deep Pockets Mirage,” a WA Post editorial dated July 15, 2009, the Post dismissed a tax on the wealthy to fund health care reform as an improbable solution.

[T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. . . . There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. . . . Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it. 

b. Apparently your bill also doesn’t cover the cost of medical care for un-documented aliens, a cost expected to be significant. Where will the money come from to pay for your reform bill let alone the additional expense for the undocumented? Before passing any health care reform, shouldn’t you know—especially in light of CBO testimony—the total cost for comprehensive reform? 

3.      Please remember that medical care delayed, rationed, or below even minimum standards of health sanitation is care denied. According to a recent report, for example, in Quebec province there is a two to three year wait merely to be assigned a family doctor. Nor is rationed care a viable option. Rationed care that delays treatment until the patient dies is a cruel hoax. Also, high rates of hospital induced infections (as reported throughout Canada) are terrifying. Health Care Reform will be a failure, a dark and dismal failure, if it means Canadian style delays, rationed care, or rampant cases of hospital-induced infections.

4.      Furthermore, where will our doctors come from in the future, since Government run programs historically discourage prospective applicants from entering the field? With government run health care, would you ever consider encouraging a young college graduate to pursue a career in medicine knowing he must spend seven years or more completing medical school, an internship, and a residency only to face a government controlled compensation commission? As noted by the Houston Chronicle, Medicare and Medicaid present less than an encouraging model:

A study last year in the Houston Chronicle found that "only 58 percent of Texas physicians are taking new Medicare cases, and only 38 percent of primary care physicians are doing so." In addition, the study found, "[across] the country, only 600,000 of 1.5 million total physicians are currently willing to treat Medicare patients." If doctors are already reluctant to participate in existing government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid, adding an additional public plan could discourage them even further.

Where are the incentives in your bill to attract young students into the medical profession?

5.      Our friends all agree—we pray your focus is on quality of care, meaning timely and effective treatment, and not access to care, meaning big government commissions restricting care based on artificial tables relating to age, cost, or other bureaucratic vagaries.

Thank you for your service.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary since state and federal criminal law statutes currently protect all persons from physical harm. In a capital case for murder, for example, the death penalty (or a life sentence) is authorized. What further punishment greater than the death penalty can be adjudged by virtue of passing hate crimes legislation? What purpose is served?

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of the consequences of hate crime legislation in England and Canada raises serious concerns, reflecting consequences of such legislation that should be a red flag to all Americans. A great danger with a ‘hate crimes’ bill is the harmful and debilitating effect it has had in foreign jurisdictions: limiting speech, curtailing debate, ushering in speech codes. Hate legislation has a chilling effect on debate. It puts a sword in the hands of litigious groups to stop speech. In Canada, for example, an author of a book review was recently forced to defend his written work before a Human Rights Commission when he merely reported on the content in a bestselling book.

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 909 increases the risk of taking our country in a dangerous direction. Even if you see some intangible benefit in such legislation, however remote, consider the danger that regulating speech and thought poses to a democratic society, a society that values free speech and respects and honors open debate in the public square.

We are feeling—almost on a daily basis–the impact of rising energy and food prices (Fortune writes: The next great crisis: America's debt). Can you tell us when fuel will no longer be needed, or how long until research does a work around for drilling oil, since Iran can have nuclear energy but we cannot? How do you know there is another viable option in the short term, meaning within 20 to 30 years?

We look at the exploding federal debt: lower tax revenues; spending for the stimulus bill and GSEs; spending on other programs increasing around 12%, adding $222 billion to the budget (Exploding Debt Threatens America); and the demand by the financial markets for greater yields to finance our debt (US long-term interest rates hit high) and we are less than confident about the future.

Elected representatives in Washington are expanding our debt, increasing our debt service, stressing our creditors—the laughing Chinese students responding to our Treasury Secretary were an ominous sign—as a debtor we are not trusted (Enjoy Stimulus Now, Pay Your $14,000 Share Later: Kevin Hassett)?

You are spending as if the law of economics for individuals has no relevance for a country. You are reportedly borrowing $.46 for every dollar we spend. President Obama says “we are out of money.” Taxpayers will opt to retire, stay at home with their children, cut back their hours, or not expand their business if you punish them for working. Please remember what happened when government passed a tax on luxury boats—the industry almost died, revenues declined, and the bill had to be withdrawn. 

If the financial markets dry up and lenders refuse to accept our dollars, or if our credit worthiness is downgraded (A Wake Up Call, Indeed), or if the cost of all the new programs is as inaccurate as the unemployment estimates—do you have a quick fix to turn it all around? What is the exit strategy (Exploding Debt Threatens America)? When credit markets refuse to lend, do we sell off oil rights beyond 20 miles of the West coast to China and Japan in return for necessary debt financing?

A Heritage Foundation chart in March 2009 visually captures the runaway spending-- this chart is causing us to lose sleep.

Vice President Biden says we will waste money and stimulus checks go out to grandparents dead for 35 years! How do you know government can improve health care by being more involved? Where is the evidence of government success: Katrina; TARP; the stimulus package this year?

When it comes to health care reform we ask that you please “do no harm.” How about first requiring some evidence of a program that works before changing it all and making things worse? England and Canada are not good examples of an acceptable one payer system for Americans. Reports suggest fewer people will want to practice medicine with government mandated care—just at a time when demographics mandate an increase in health providers and specialist.

Please: at a minimum require that any changes apply to all members of Congress and all government employees before adopting changes.

Sincerely,