CHUCK DIETRICK'S POLI-NOMICS

Let Me Tell You About A Letter I Received From One Of My Constituents...

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:03:00 GMT

There it was towards the end of today's healthcare summit--the perfect illustration of liberal and conservative mindset differences when it comes to crafting solutions to difficult problems. Dick Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and member of the senate Democrat leadership team was waxing on about why tort reform is so very unnecessary, and more importantly, why it would be unfair to those victimized by medical malpractice.

As politicians are want to do, he used a tragic story to bolster his argument. In this particular instance, he was quarreling with the Republican notion that damage awards for pain and suffering should be capped at $250,000. A badly botched routine medical procedure was used as supporting evidence. The unfortunate victim, while undergoing a standard procedure to remove a mole, had her face badly burned and disfigured when the oxygen she was being given ignited. The woman had to deal with numerous painful surgeries and a life irreparably altered for the worst. Obviously, no rational, caring person could believe that $250,000 is adequate compensation for such suffering.

On the surface, it is difficult to argue with Durbin's reasoning. However, what he doesn't recognize is the dramatic ripple effect on a system that must plan for the possibility of uncapped or virtually uncapped damages to more than just a relative few. It is incumbent upon insurance companies to set premiums, often higher than we'd like, to deal with a lack of cost certainty. It would be fiscally irresponsible (and probably illegal for a public company) to do otherwise. One cannot prudently manage such a business without allocating substantial sums for potentially catastrophic lawsuit awards. Relatedly, medical personnel are forced to practice defensive medicine because they are fearful of crippling lawsuits and the effect such cases will have on their malpractice insurance and overall insurability. Of course, the practice of defensive medicine, irrespective of the existence of actual malpractice, serves to raise premiums even more. A very unvirtuous cycle.

So, in doing what may appear to be sensible and compassionate on the surface (i.e. allowing enormous awards) actually damages the overall system such that orders of magnitude more people are harmed through much higher premiums or lack of access (due to those higher premiums). Would we be better off as a society with lower premiums and broader coverage for all, or virtually unlimited damage awards for the relative few? Is the unfairness to the few trumped by increased fairness to the many?

No doubt reasonable accommodations should be made for malpractice victims, but we simply cannot design policy to address a fraction of one percent of cases, when by doing so, we egregiously impact the other ninety nine plus percent. That is the difficult, but right thing to do.

And, we make these trade-offs all the time.

We set the guilty free on technicalities, as gut-wrenching as it is, because we are concerned that improprieties allowed to go unchecked will have a deleterious effect on our liberty and the integrity of our system of justice.

We could require that cars enable drivers and passengers to withstand head-on collisions at 65 MPH, but have concluded that the economic and societal costs of doing so would be prohibitive.

There are endless examples.

A balance is what we require. As tempting as it is to want to address every bit of current suffering, we have to have an eye toward the longer term, or we're just setting ourselves up for even greater misery down the road.

Common sense and basic economics tell us that the greater cost certainty derived through tort reform, coupled with competition made possible by allowing purchases across state lines is what will control and even reduce premiums. The Democrats' own rhetoric is proof. If insurance company profits are as outrageous as the Dems claim, then there will be a flood of insurer entrants into the marketplace who will want to compete for a piece of the profit pie...once the state monopolies are busted and the threat of exorbitant, unpredictable malpractice awards is mitigated. We know that medical personnel compensation is not the culprit. Salaries are all but stagnant. Nor is it plant or other basic operating expenses. That points the finger squarely at lack of competition and the cost problems associated with defensive medicine.

The market, not the government, is the solution.

Any time you hear a politician, Democrat or Republican, start a sentence with, "Let me tell you about a letter I received from one of my constituents..." cover your ears and hide your wallet.

Hot Dogs...and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:34:00 GMT

There's a story out today that highlights the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) call to redesign hot dogs (and other foods) because they present a choking risk to children. Past Chairman, Dr. Gary Smith, is quoted: "Any food that has a cylindrical or round shape poses a risk." Clearly, and unabashed and unapologetic roundist of the worst sort.

Hot dogs, so the article says, account for 17% of food-related asphyxiations in children under the age of 10. Hmmm. I've seen Kobayashi down 50 or 60 of the suckers in a few minutes without nary a Heimlich maneuver. But, who am I to doubt the vaunted AAP? Who doesn't just prop little Billy up in his highchair, toss him a couple dogs, then head out to the backyard for a smoke? That's ok; isn't it?

Where will the government and other organizations stop in their continual and absurd effort to protect us from ourselves?

Could bundt cakes be in the cross hairs because hemorrhoid suffers may mistake them for inflatable donuts and bruise their tail bones?

Might pineapple upside down cake be under investigation because there is concern some may feel it necessary to stand on their head in order to eat it?

What about NY strip steaks? Perhaps they subliminally promote indecency and lead to a life of prostitution?

And, of course, everybody who saw the movie American Pie understands the temptation associated with hot apple pie.

A little common sense can go a long way, people. Really, it can. Government doesn't have to insinuate itself into every aspect of our lives; even when the matter is something as "critical" as the shape of a hot dog.

If they insist on this further intrusion, I guess we can all look forward to the movie, Clear and Present Danger: The Hot Dog Files. Jack Ryan never had a tougher mission.

Spoiler alert: He kills the enemy by choking them with hot dogs.

The Politics of Economics

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:29:00 GMT

The Laurel and Hardy of left wing economic thought were at it again today. Actually, make that Hardy and Hardy.

Paul Krugman, in response to an interview where Obama tacitly approved of the bonuses granted to Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, said, "How is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless."

Not to be out done, Joseph Stiglitz, in a piece for Politico, called for another stimulus--ex post facto, and told us not to get caught up in all that angst over ever mounting deficits--you know, the deficits that were "out-of-control" when they were 80% smaller under George Bush.

If you follow politics and/or economics, you know that Krugman and Stiglitz are the go to guys when the left leaning media and liberal politicians are looking to validate progressive policy prescriptions with some academic heft. Seems reasonable on the surface. Both are Nobel laureates, after all. But, do you ever wonder how they earned the honor?

Let's examine Dr. Stiglitz a bit. Krugman has been in my cross hairs in a number of past blogs, so he gets a pass this time.

It's hard to find a progressive principle that doesn't have Stiglitz's stamp on it. He is often referred to as the most cited economist in the world. When one reviews his body of work, it's easy to see why those who favor an activist government look for his endorsement.

Stiglitz made his mark by "proving" that markets are not normally efficient. Standard economic theory held that markets are almost always efficient, except in some limited and well documented instances. In essence, Stiglitz made the case that the invisible hand is just that, invisible (i.e. doesn't exist). Furthermore, he "showed" that whenever markets are imperfect (which is regularly the case), then there is nearly always some government intervention which can induce superior outcomes.

Are you beginning to see why this research caught the eye of the folks in Norway?

Finally, someone and something to justify the Big Government utopian desires of the Nobel committee and their elitist brethren around the globe. Imagine, research that says it's not just okay for the government to intervene, but actually necessary if we want better outcomes. Social justice here we come.

Wow, what a breakthrough.

Apparently, no one considered that when Adam Smith and the other founding fathers of capitalism orthodoxy discussed efficient markets, they probably meant relatively, not perfectly efficient, nor did they mean efficient all the time? Guess that's why they explained how imbalances were typically corrected?

And, I imagine no one bothered to calculate the odds of ideologically aligned politicians coming up with flawless economic solutions to squeeze out incremental efficiency from all these imperfect markets? Come to think of it, I bet they also didn't figure the probability of the government actually making things much worse?

As pointed out numerous times in past blog entries, markets can and do break. There are occasions when intelligent intervention can produce better outcomes. However, one has to recognize that the likelihood of highly imperfect politicians coming up with perfect or near perfect solutions is quite remote. As such, the first instinct should be to let markets heal themselves. The near- or mid-term results may be painful, but not nearly as damaging as ill-advised intervention.

If we listen to the Hardy twins, Krugman and Stiglitz, it will be just another fine mess that they've gotten us into.

Poseidon Adventure

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:19:00 GMT

President Obama unveiled his fiscal 2011 budget today. It calls for $3.83 trillion in government spending. Let that figure sink in for a moment.

If you're having some difficulty wrapping your arms around it, perhaps a little perspective might help. It is roughly $1 trillion more than was spent in fiscal 2008. Are you aware of any business that can endure, over a three year period, a greater than 35% rise in expenditures coupled with no/little corresponding increase in revenue? That's no way to run a Dairy Queen, let alone the United States government.

Our captain (and his predecessor) has already steered the ship of state into an enormous iceberg of debt. The question is, will we follow Gene Hackman, or a misguided band of irrational, panicked people to safe passage off the Poseidon?

If the President was truly serious about reigning in out-of-control spending, freezing non-entitlement, non-security discretionary outlays for three years would not be the solution. That piece of the pie represents only about 17% of the budget, and would lead to a meager $15 billion reduction in year one--less than four tenths of one percent.

Instead, why not rollback to fiscal 2008 spending levels?. In fiscal 2008, just two short years ago, the federal government spent about $2.9 trillion--upwards of $1 trillion less than is called for in the President's new budget. Would that really be so undoable? It's not like we're talking about spending levels from 20, or 10, or even 5 years ago.

We were still funding two wars back then, and more recently have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "stimulus." So, there's no need to accept the argument that another trillion dollars is necessary. GDP is back in the black, and the world financial system is on more solid footing (for the moment). The markets and economies of the world would boom if they thought we were taking the difficult steps necessary to get our economic house in order. And, businesses would finally have the impetus to hire.

Advice to President Obama: Have Larry Summers do some deep breathing exercises and swim back to fiscal 2008 where the spending level was a heck of a lot safer. That's the path to our fiscal salvation.

Shelley Winters would be awfully proud.

A Hookah Smoking Caterpillar

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:48:00 GMT

When did Grace Slick and Jefferson Airplane start writing State of the Union speeches?

Tonight, we were asked to step through the looking glass and back to a period when this rhetoric would be more believable--a time of idealism and unbridled hope. Unfortunately, this evening's ostensibly recycled 2008 campaign speech now carries the heavy baggage of twelve months of broken promises, including, most significantly, a complete rejection of bipartisanship--the single biggest plank in Obama's platform and reason for his election (besides the fact people were REALLY tired of Republicans and their missteps).

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small

Sure, during the 2008 campaign, most knew that there was an incongruity between Obama's record and what he was promising. Many understood that he had virtually no substantive track record of reaching across the isle to compromise on difficult issues. Many more knew that his experiences and associations strongly suggested a near lock-step allegiance with the far left. Nevertheless, the words and themes were so, so mellifluous and soaring. They filled us with great expectations and anticipation of better days. They made us dream of what might be. And, they made us want for something better than the difficult and divisive last years of the Bush administration.

Well, here we are a year later. The words and themes are the same, but the ring is very, very hollow. How can we be expected to trust him this time? What of the repeated pledges regarding lobbyists, earmarks, safe nuclear, offshore drilling, going through the budget line by line, fiscal responsibility, etc., etc., etc.? And, let's not forget one of my personal favorites, "Let me know if you have a better approach. Really; I mean it." I feel so used.

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call

What makes tonight's rehash of past promises, including, most specifically, yet another call for bipartisanship all the more stupefying is that it was done while simultaneously slapping the other party and its agenda right across the face. C'mon, is that any way to usher in a new era of cooperation? Even if you believe it deep down in your bones, can't you finally step away from the bashing in the name of tackling tough problems together? It's not like he hasn't said it a million times before and people don't understand his views on the past eight years. Kinda makes it hard to see the sincerity.

Despite all of this, I suggest giving the President one last chance. I know what you're saying, "Fool me once..." Give him a week, or two, or maybe even four to see if there's been an epiphany and a legitimate effort to meet near the middle.

If not, it's game over. Go ask Alice.

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"

Funny, I feel like I just had some kind of mushroom.

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling

Chuck Dietrick — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:37:31 GMT

In a 5 to 4 party-line ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed a 1990 decision and also struck down a key element of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. The net result is that unions and corporations can now use their own money to call for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In doing so, the court essentially said that the First Amendment rights of unions and corporations trumped concerns that their money may have a corrupting or disproportionate effect on elections.

Although the First Amendment offers very broad protection ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."), congress and the courts have, over the years, narrowed or sought to narrow the boundaries, particularly when the rights of individuals, groups, or institutions were thought to be improperly or unfairly impinged by the speech of others. Individual campaign contribution limits are but one manifestation of such narrowing.

Naturally, a 5 to 4 party-line decision engenders skepticism. Was it derived from constitutionally sound reasoning, or just ideologically motivated? Of course, it can be both; they're not mutually exclusive.

Given the very expansive language of the First Amendment, it is, not surprisingly, open to a multitude of interpretations. In such complex situations, common sense is often the best guide.

The actions of the current and prior administrations, coupled with rapidly changing election/fund raising dynamics, demonstrate the soundness of this ruling. It would be difficult to argue that Bush 43 did not want to strip unions of power and influence. Similarly, there is no denying that Obama has corporations right in the cross hairs.

Therefore, isn't it reasonable that unions and corporations have every opportunity to defend themselves and their interests against such powerful onslaughts? The old logic simply isn't sensible any longer. Previously, as Justice Kennedy noted, the court upheld regulations on corporate speech based on the theory that the voice of ordinary citizens could be drowned out by corporations and their vast sums of money. 24/7 cable news and grass roots Internet fund raising have made that notion obsolete. There is no shortage of raiseable cash available to those on each side of an issue. Nor is there a limit on ingenuity.

Cash may still be king, but it now shares the throne with creativity. The Internet has changed the rules. The most resonate messages are no longer exclusively the domain of those with the fattest wallets.

Don't be fooled by the spin. This is a reasonable and fair decision. If precedent is based on conditions that are no longer relevant or true, then it is rational for that precedent to be struck down.

Justice Felix Frankfurter said, "If facts are changing, law cannot be static."

American Robespierre

Chuck Dietrick — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:37:00 GMT

George Bernard Shaw said, "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." How true; for today, the United States is reliving a 21st century French Revolution of sorts.

Like the French Revolution, the Obama Revolution began with noble intentions and was kindled by comparable root causes--including mismanaged wars, decreasing capacity to meet domestic obligations, mounting national debt, and class warfare.

In 1789, the rise of Enlightenment ideals, popularized and promulgated by the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire and others, helped to foment a sense of unrest and growing desire for upheaval. In the mid-2000's, a comparable feeling of dissatisfaction and want of change permeated America.

Like 1789, aspirations for change in the mid-2000's were initially driven by deep discontent with the performance of those in power, then later catalyzed by emerging charismatic voices for transformation.

In 2006 the American electorate "stormed the Bastille" and planted a flag, expressing a profound disdain for how government was operating. It wanted something better. In fact, it insisted on something better--someone equipped to coalesce the disparate interests of a political class spun out of control and unable to address the needs of a country facing increasingly intractable problems.

The King, Bush 43, was neutered, and his court (Republican congress) was exiled. In swept Barack Obama--Robespierre in an Armani suit.

Robespierre, as explained in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, was a "bright young theorist but out of his depth in the matter of experience." Further describing Robespierre, the encyclopedia continued, "the Committee of Public Safety gave him power, which he hoped to use for the establishment of his favourite theories, and for the same purpose he acquiesced in and even heightened the horrors of the Reign of Terror. It is here that the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power appeared."

So, although the French Revolution removed a failing monarchy, it replaced it with a radical democratic republic, and an even more poisonous climate, highlighted by the Reign of Terror where rival political factions executed enemies with impunity. Today, public opinion and the ballot box have replaced the guillotine as the method of choice for purging unwanted politicians. On Tuesday, the metaphorical guillotine dropped on twelve months of tone deaf, hubristic one-party rule. The people spoke loudly--damning the failed promise of bipartisanship, the drastic lurch to the left, and the Reign of Economic Terror.

The French Revolution played out over ten years and led to several additional decades of turmoil as the country struggled to find its identity and settle on an appropriate form of government.

Things did not end well for Robespierre. The idealistic and once promising leader attempted suicide and was subsequently executed. He contributed to and was unable to contain the wild excesses of a movement that morphed into an unruly and unrestrained mob.

Although many in his party are doomed, there is still time for President Obama to avoid a 21st century version of Robespierre's fate, repudiation at the ballot box.

Will he be able to set aside his largely rejected ideology and do the peoples' business, or will he stubbornly and self-destructively continue to pursue his own "theories?"

Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

Let's hope not.

Paul Revere Rides Again

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:18:00 GMT

It wasn't on horseback at midnight, but it had every bit the sense of urgency and alarm as that famous ride in April of 1775. Barack Obama rolled into Boston on Sunday to alert the masses: THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING; THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING.

Of course, the warning was not without reason. The GOP has already marched through Virginia and New Jersey, and is moving rapidly up the coast straight toward Massachusetts. Unlike 1775, however, the interlopers may actually be welcomed, rather than repelled.

In many respects, the Democrats have already lost this war. Should they squeak by in Tuesday's battle, the victory would be Pyhrric at best. The lantern's been lit at the Old North Church and every politician on the left can interpret the signal. Barring a material shift in sentiment between now and November, each race will be contested. Safe seats appear but a distant memory. This, no doubt, is disastrous for the DNC. Valuable resources will be required to defend what were previously impregnable strongholds. That means limited dollars to go on the offensive. Not a good spot for the Dems.

Obama trotted out an old and comfortable theme on Sunday, populism. He roared to the crowd about how Martha Coakley, like his administration, will fight for the people--against those mean banks, oil companies, and insurance behemoths, and I imagine virtually every other company and industry without a significant union population.

Isn't it ironic, though, that "being for the people" seems to have nothing to do with empowering them, and everything to do with making them more dependent? If we could just press our thumb down a little harder on the job creators, or make the rules even more uncertain, and install another government program...or twelve...all would be better. Obama and friends can't seem to comprehend that all this "fighting for people" and against corporations nonsense has caused enormous collateral damage to the regular folks who work for, or potentially might be hired by, those evil corporations.

Coakley said, "People are angry at the policies of the past that frankly rewarded the wealthy and left main street behind. I think that’s wrong and we have to fix that." They're fixing it alright. It was really dreadful back when everyone who wanted a job could find one. Things are a lot better now. Right? Imagine the horror of rewarding the wealthy. Oddly, when the wealthy (i.e. those with investment capital) don't get rewarded, they're not so keen on deploying their money in economy-expanding, jobs-producing endeavors. Who knew?

Many pols on the left just refuse to acknowledge the simple elegance of our capitalist, quasi-free market system. Big risks sometimes beget big rewards (and often big losses). The residue of those risks are GDP expansion and job creation. Outlandish returns (as long as they are scrupulously earned) are an important element of what fuels the system. The potential for those returns is what attracts a disproportionate amount of investment capital to the U.S. When we go beyond necessary and intelligent regulation and instead inflict a thousand cuts, the capital drys up and the system ultimately bleeds to death.

For those of you not into all of the policy minutia, merely compare and contrast the tone this administration has established as it goes about attempting to lift us out of difficult economic circumstances, to the last time we faced such challenges (in the early 1980's). Which feels more right--a never-ending stream of finger pointing, threats, and shakedowns, or a climate of optimism, empowerment, and incentives?

Yes, the Republicans are indeed coming. Perhaps it will be a blessing in disguise for Obama and the Dems if they recognize the onslaught for what it is--an indicator of major dissatisfaction and an opportunity to alter strategy in time for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Giddyup.

The Amazing Kreskin...er...Krugman

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:54:00 GMT

You really have to hand it to Paul Krugman. The man is persistent. There has rarely, if ever, been an argument for government expansion that he hasn't advanced or embraced. Remember, this is the savant who thought the $787 billion Keynesian-style "stimulus" was only one half to one third the size it needed to be, despite voluminous historical evidence as to the ineffectiveness of such programs.

In his latest New York Times missive, Krugman extols the virtues of European social democracy. He says that, "what everyone knows isn't true." Adding, "Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works." Really?

Of course, as per usual, the supporting evidence he cites is only visible to those looking at a rose-colored fun house mirror through a pin hole in a piece of cardboard. And, in typical Krugman fashion, it's not so much his unique interpretation of data points as it is what he conveniently, or cluelessly, leaves out.

It's apparent from the beginning that the column is yet another exercise in obfuscation. Remarkably, he says, "Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it."

Just imagine his reaction if an assertion of American prosperity/economic justice were made by pointing to visible signs of wealth in Beverly Hills, or Park Avenue, or Beacon Hill? Was it not he and other liberal economists/politicians who constantly preached that the boom years were more of a kaboom for the many who fell behind and/or slipped through the cracks?

Apparently he missed the contradiction in such an observation. Not content to simply mangle the qualitative, Krugman goes on to demonstrate his facility for twisting and rationalizing the quantitative.

He notes that since 1980 America's real GDP has outgrown that in the European Union (EU) 3.0% to 2.2%. But, he neglects to highlight the significance of the disparity. Allow me. If average U.S. GDP over a similar time period were instead equal to the EU figure, we would incur, given today's GDP, upwards of $3 trillion in additional debt. But what's $3 trillion in the name of social democracy?

Moreover, he claims that EU and U.S. per capita GDP, a more important measure (in his estimation), has risen at about the same rate, with the U.S. enjoying a slight advantage. My research, however, shows the United States 10th ($46,300) in worldwide per capita GDP, and the EU 38th ($33,000)--quite a non-trivial delta.

Krugman also says that Europe has caught up in its use of technology; that its productivity is close to that in the U.S.; and that European unemployment rates are substantially higher than those in the United States, but their citizens are not much more likely to be on the dole than people in the U.S. Hmmm.

So, in making his case for European social democracy, Krugman admits that the U.S. is ahead in virtually all the economic indices, but he expains away our various advantages as relatively meaningless.

Krugman forgets, or chooses not to mention, the many material benefits the EU derives from a U.S. not drug down by social democratic policies. Imagine how uncompetitive Europe would be if it wasn't able to draft behind the United States?

Where do you think European productivity numbers would be if it wasn't for U.S. and Asian innovation/technology? How much greater would their already enormous tax burden be if they had to provide for their own national defense? How much worse would their GDP be if the U.S. was not the number one customer for their luxury cars and other items? How much more significantly would their population be declining if it were not for the overall positive economic impact of a non-socially-democratic United States?

Turn the U.S. into a social democracy--throwing a wrench into the catalytic engine of worldwide growth, innovation, freedom, and defense--and see just how fast an already fragile EU economy would spiral downward toward total collapse.

The Amazing Krugman...all the clairvoyance of a boardwalk psychic with a migraine.

Obamathello

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:01:00 GMT

If you caught the Sunday talk shows this week, you witnessed yet another poor Not Ready For Primetime Player trotted out to defend policies so flimsy that they would collapse under the weight of an anorexic butterfly.

John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, was the latest somnambulant sinecure to take a bullet for the evermore astonishing ineptitude of this administration. Among the gems he uttered, and there were many, was something to the effect of: The failed Christmas Day terror attack was a "unique incident" that won't affect the process of closing the Guantanamo facility. More remarkably, he indicated that many of the Gitmo-housed detainees of Yemeni descent are still on track to be returned to their home country, which just so happens to be the latest prime breeding ground of global extremists. Really.

I could almost hear Janet Napolitano muttering, "Tag; you're it." "It," of course, being--Foolish Incompetent of the Day.

As ineffectual as dozens of Obama appointees have proven to be, shouldn't we really be focusing on who writes the script, rather than those who deliver the dialogue? This is, after all, as most would agree, the most scripted administration ever. And, the screenwriters of the current drama happen to be Messrs. Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel---a.k.a. BadDreamWorks.

Obama's day one "commitment" to close Guantanamo was the drama's first act. Our protagonist, Obamathello, did so, foreshadowing subsequent trouble, with hope in his heart, but not a trace of a plan on his brain. The Enlightened One stood on the grand stage and sermonized about how Gitmo functions as a recruiting tool for our enemies. In a later plot twist, it turns out he was correct, but in a wholly unexpected fashion. The terrorists are energized by their ability to affect policy changes from a weak-kneed government, more concerned with offending than defending. Recruiting skyrockets.

The second act centers around the failed Christmas day attack and ensuing debate over how to respond. It highlights a central and ongoing conflict. Do we succumb to the self-anointed, hypocritical global moralizers that constantly strive to weaken America, and return enemy combatants to the battlefield, or do we recognize that a strong, aggressive defense of the homeland is completely consistent with our values, and THE primary obligation of government?

Act III is not yet fully written. The decisions made in Act II will determine whether or not this play turns out to be a tragedy or a triumph.

In a subplot, it should be noted, the protagonist's nemesis, Lord MacBush, releases, against his better judgment, numerous combatants from Gitmo in an ill-advised gesture to the aforementioned self-anointed, hypocritical global moralizers. Those combatants come back to haunt Obamathello. Will Obamathello choose to make the same mistake, or recognize it as a sign of what not to do? Will he see the truth and aggressively prosecute the war on terror, or choose to commit national security suicide?

"This is the night that either makes me or fordoes me quite." --Othello. Act V. Scene 1.