A New Approach To The Cost Of Healthcare

We were in transit to Florida during President Bush's State of the Union speech, and I confess that I have not looked online for the text or a video since we returned. Too many other things to do and read. I just haven't managed to make it a priority. However, I read a Michael Barone piece today that makes it sound as if the President has at least one worthwhile proposal to his credit from that speech. Ron Wyden, the Democratic Senator from my home state of Oregon, seems to think so, and is putting some effort into furthering the President's idea, engaging his fellow Senators on the topic. I have some respect for Wyden. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he seems to me to be a principled man, not simply a partisan, and his willingness to run with an idea in which he finds merit, despite the fact that it came from not only a Republican, but the oft-criticized Target-in-Chief himself, made me pay attention to what he's promoting (as well as sending Wyden up a step or two on my opinion meter.)

As an Oregonian, I've been aware that Wyden has been quite concerned about providing health care to those who cannot afford to buy it for themselves, and whose employers do not provide it for them, and he has encouraged the examination of The Oregon Health Plan (our state's answer to universal coverage) on the national level. He's not new to the topic of providing insurance to the poor. Michael Barone, writing at Townhall.com, examines the healthcare proposal the President made in the SOTU, which Wyden is now floating among his colleagues. I find a lot of merit in the idea, because it's not another government-run program, where bureaucracy and inefficiency (or is that redundant?) could make healthcare a nightmare for us all, but rather an adjustment in the way health insurance is taxed, which might lead to a more progressive, but reasonable approach to providing coverage that doesn't route it through the workplace. I'm going to quote at length here:

Bush's proposal in a nutshell is to end the preferential tax treatment for employer-provided health insurance. In 1943, in the midst of World War II, when wage and price controls were in effect, the government decided that employers could deduct the cost of health insurance for their employees and that employees would not be taxed on the value of the policies. This decision has saddled us with a system in which health insurance has been tied to employment, with many perverse results. Healthcare is perceived as a free good, and consumers have no incentive to take costs into account.

Bush proposes to change this by giving every couple paying taxes a standard $15,000 deduction ($7,500 for individuals) for the cost of health insurance. Those with employer-provided insurance worth more than $15,000 (about 20 percent of the total) would be taxed on the additional amount; this would very likely discourage expensive policies.

As a Washington Post editorial on the speech pointed out, this would be a progressive change.

The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are high earners with employer-provided insurance. The biggest losers in the current system are low earners without employer-provided insurance. Health insurance experts on the left, right and center have long called for ending the tax code's preference for employer-provided health insurance. But employers haven't wanted to lose the deduction, and politicians have flinched at the prospect of taxing voters on something they have been getting tax-free. Bush has found a way out, by equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance wherever it comes from.

What Barone says this would accomplish, and Wyden seems to agree based on his support of the idea, is to provide a mechanism to insure a broader range of people, without turning healthcare into a government-run catastrophe. Bush proposes a tax deduction for the insured, rather that the employer. Employer-provided insurance would be treated, and taxed, as income for the employee, rather than as a tax write-off for the employer, and both the people with employer-provided insurance, as well as those who purchase insurance privately, would have a tax break to offset the cost. Employees would then have incentive to keep down medical costs, helping to control the cost of the insurance, and competition within the private market would also serve in that capacity. According to Barone, with a $15,000 deduction, low-end earners could be subsidized by the tax on the policies that cost more than that $15,000 (the more elaborate and expensive insurance of the well-to-do.) This approach could well provide universal coverage without the direct intervention and control of Uncle Sam, leading healthcare in a "progressive" direction, without eliminating the free market and turning healthcare in America into a European nightmare.

There's room for political compromise here. Liberals and conservatives alike can find things to approve in this proposal, if they allow themselves to come at this from the direction of solving the problem rather than winning against the enemy. There are certainly a lot of people who could benefit from a new approach. I'm not big on government entitlements (this is an understatement), and am always reluctant to see the government take over from the private sector. However, if we as a society make the decision that it is in our best interest to ensure that everyone can afford healthcare, then something which keeps the decision-making and operation of the system in the hands of individuals and private companies is much to be preferred over one which makes the government the official healthcare provider. Ensuring equally bad healthcare for all is not my idea of an improvement in the system.

From a practical standpoint there are certainly people who could benefit greatly from the provision of health insurance being uncoupled from employment. Some of my own family members are currently providing their own insurance at $800 a month, and are struggling to do so on disability-hindered incomes. They are not disabled enough to go on the government dole, but are disabled enough to be unable to work at a full-time job which provides insurance. These disabilities also ensure that insurance is an absolute imperative for them. A tax write-off for that privately-purchased insurance would be a big help to them. I probably would not be in favor of this were it simply a new entitlement, but as a replacement to the deduction currently being given to employers, I can see the merit. Of course, I have not done much research on the cons of the proposal at this point, but as far as I've read to date, I think the idea is at least worth discussing in good faith.

Barone points out that the political climate isn't exactly ripe for good-faith compromise, but I at least have hope that some of our political leaders are willing to care more about solutions that reelection points. Wyden has already shown the willingness to cross the aisles on this issue. Maybe his fellows could find somewhere within themselves a willingness to do the same. Maybe.

The Numbers Explained

Here's something interesting. Frederick W. Kagan, one of the authors of the plan given to the Bush administration by the American Enterprise Institute's Iraq Planning Group (IPG), which recently led to President Bush's announcement that he will be sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq to pacify Baghdad, writes at The Weekly Standard about the discrepancies between the IPG's proposed troop numbers and those set by the President. He explains, briefly, how the IPG, composed of "a team of military planning and regional experts," came to the conclusions it did, and what the differences are between their plan and the one currently going forward. Bottom line: The IPG advised more troops than the President has decided to deploy, on the order of twice as many, to completely "clear and hold all of Baghdad."

I don't know what led to the lower numbers coming from the White House, whether from a solid belief that the numbers they settled on would be enough, or a belief that the American political classes and public would start a protest stampede if the number was too high, or perhaps, as some have claimed, because we don't have enough troops in our military as a whole to sustain an additional 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, Kagan doesn't make the President's decisions seem calamitous by any measure. Kagan has some criticisms of certain aspects of the way the troop deployments are going forward, and of the amount of leadership being asked of the Iraqis, but his explanation of the Bush Administration's current plans, in comparison with the IPG's proposal, make it clear that the two plans aren't as far removed from each other as the numbers would indicate.

What I found interesting about the article was the glimpse into how all those military types make decisions about what troop deployments will be necessary to accomplish a given goal. The glimpse is very glimpsy--certainly not a detailed description of military strategy, but I still found it informative. Those experienced military decision-makers seem to have a very clear understanding about what a given number of soldiers, in a given range of time and space, can accomplish. Clearly, conditions on the ground change, and can affect outcomes, but the discussion from Kagan, while addressing troop numbers, was also focused on numbers of brigades. They are thinking in chunks of capabilities and accomplishment, which reminded me that, while individual soldiers are the core of what the military can accomplish, how they are used as a whole will really determine the effectiveness of their missions. Each individual soldier may very well be brilliant and capable (and I happen to believe that our American soldiers are the best the world has ever seen), but if they are put to the wrong tasks, or in the wrong places, they will be fighting a much harder battle because of the misuse of their abilities.

I believe Iraq is winnable, and what our soldiers are doing there is crucial to the future stability of the region and the world, and I hope (along with the saner elements in America, who aren't rooting for the plan to fail so that Bush will fail and prove them right) that our leaders will use them well. I've said before that I think this surge is the right thing to do. We cannot leave Iraq to the fate of Vietnam, and we cannot leave our own reputation in the world, and future security, in the hands of militia leaders like Moqtada al Sadr and eschatologically-driven regimes like Iran, who would declare victory and impose their particular brand of Islam on the people of Iraq before the last U.S. soldier had slunk out the back door, or at the very least start "the mother of all civil wars." These troop deployments are important, as are the decisions being made as to how to use them. I pray that God will give our leaders wisdom. He's already given us an incredibly capable military force.

The Numbers Game

Dean Barnett has a breakdown of what the troop surge in Iraq, which President Bush announced last night, really means on the ground, and offers some opinions as to why many of the voices in Congress and punditry are dismissing the efficacy of the change. It is funny to watch so many Senators and Congressmen who, when Bush was sticking with the force numbers already on the ground, were calling for an increase in troop strength, and criticising the President for not boosting the numbers (or pulling out altogether, which is what they really want), but now are singing a different tune and saying that a rise in troop levels won't do any good. Some of them are just going to oppose the President no matter what. It's their stock in trade. As for the rest, Barnett puts it down to ignorance of what the addition of 20,000 troops, all focused on security in Baghdad and training Iraqis, actually means in terms of capability. Ground that has been previously cleared of militias and terrorists, but then ceded back to the enemy, will now be cleared again, but this time held, with the aid of the increased forces. He explains it all pretty well. Have a look.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Planning For Victory

Here's a news flash that will be encouraging to those of us who still believe that victory is possible in Iraq--So does President Bush. Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard, reports on the President's response to the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group:

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.

Barnes has what looks to be the inside scoop on what that plan for winning entails. I'm no foreign policy or military expert, but the approach Barnes suggests the administration is going to take seems reasonable and consistent with Bush's goals to me. It centers around increasing security and U.S. troop strength (by 50,000 troops) in strategic places, especially Baghdad, to limit violence and protect those who are cooperating with the Iraqi government. This has the potential of leading to more political cooperation, from people who right now are relying on sectarian violence to give them control over the country's future, when they find that alternate routes--the violent ones--are denied them. It would also enable those who are currently uncooperative out of fear of insurgent reprisals, rather than personal insurgent ambitions, to cast their lot with those who seek a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

The ISG report suggests removing many American soldiers from security duty, tasking them with training Iraqis instead, looking ultimately for a "graceful withdrawal", rather than a victory, but this approach fails to acknowledge what the fallout would be of handing things over to the Iraqis before real security is established. A violent and unstable situation would degrade even further, and people who are at this point refraining from entering into the fray would have almost no choice but to pick a faction and add to the violence to protect themselves. While training Iraqi security forces to take over their own security is the ultimate and ongoing goal, they simply are not ready for Coalition forces to dial down their security efforts. Barnes says the President's tack will be to continue the training efforts, while upping security personnel, clamping down on the instability that is hindering the political process. He says the new plan was "authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute":

It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.

All of this doesn't seem that different from the goals, and on-the-ground realities, the President has had all along, but the addition of troops to accomplish these goals is where the plan takes a turn. The "new" approach steps up in large measure the level of U.S. activity to bring order to the chaos in Baghdad. Now one of the main questions is how Congress will react to the concept of increasing security in Iraq through temporarily increasing U.S. troop numbers, until the ever-expanding Iraqi police and military are fully trained and ready. It's uncertain how Congress will respond, since for a while now the focus of many, especially on the left, has been on withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible, without actually getting our tails slammed in the door of world opinion on the way out. Actually winning the war hasn't even seemed possible from the perspective of many politicians and pundits, for a long time. It is a key issue whether enough of them can be brought around to see the possibility of victory to support the President in actually increasing, rather than decreasing the troops. Barnes explains that some degree of cooperation from the new Congress is one of the President's concerns:

Before Bush announces his "new way forward" in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush's second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.

What I would love to see is a few politicians setting aside their political (especially presidential) aspirations for long enough to think about what is best for the countries--ours and Iraq. Even other countries in the region (of which probably only Iran and Syria really want to see the insurgency continue) would benefit from the continued transformation of Iraq into a stable, democratic nation. Surely, if the loyal opposition here in the U.S. take off their "Bush is the enemy" hats for even a brief period, they can see that a victory in Iraq, even at a potentially higher cost, is still much to be preferred to a loss that leaves our credibility in tatters, and Iraq in ruins. (I tend to think that the costs would actually go down if we can really get control of the situation, but that's another post.) No matter whether they agreed with our entry into this war, it still must be possible for them to see a chance for honorable victory and support it, without sacrificing their principles and belief that we should never have gone there in the first place. Of course, the President hasn't actually presented this plan yet, but if Barnes is right, that day is coming, and I hope the Congressional response is supportive. It's what's best for Iraq. It's what's best for America, and if it happens to be what's best for the Bush administration too, well, then his opponents can comfort themselves with the realities of presidential term limits. This isn't about Bush. It's about doing what's right, and Congress and the media should get behind him on this one.

Update: Here's a somewhat different view.

Reality Calls

Interesting. President Bush is wasting no time in accepting the realities of life with a Democratic House. I've been watching cable news this morning, and the first thing that jumped out at me was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Bush's acceptance of that resignation. President Bush has already announced the man he wants to replace Rumsfeld, former CIA Director Robert Gates. An interesting choice, since it could put an emphasis upon the intelligence end of the prosecution of the war. Gates has also been serving on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a group Democrats have said they wanted to influence the direction the country takes in Iraq in future decision making. That makes it less likely they will object to Gates' confirmation.

With Rumsfeld's exit, the President has now given the Democratic leadership the primary thing they said they wanted regarding Iraq upon coming into power. It's an interesting decision. Bush has almost preemptively taken away the first excuse the Democrats would have used for failing to make progress on Iraq, and might, by this move, have almost forced them to engage in bi-partisan efforts to win the war, rather than cut and run. On some levels, it's a shame. Rumsfeld has served well, and been unfairly condemned by a slanted media and a politically motivated Democratic minority. However, in the interest of reaching out to the people with whom he now has to work, it is an astute move by the President if he wants to continue to move in the direction of staying till the job is done in Iraq.

Democrats might be more likely to be constructive on the war front now that they have a much larger measure of power. Most of them, at least the ones I've heard this morning, including Speaker Presumptive Nancy Pelosi, are aware that they will now be held accountable for their actions over the next two years; they can't just criticize anymore. They wanted power and now they've got it. People will be watching what they do with it. I've also heard Democrats saying this morning that they know that the American people don't just want to abandon Iraq, and that it would be a mistake on many levels for us to just walk away, rather than fix what's wrong. Good. Maybe if they have to be the ones coming up with solutions, instead of complaining from the sidelines, the more reasonable among them might proffer some actual positive approaches.

One other thing that comes to mind is that this war might become easier to prosecute with the Dems more engaged, simply because the media will not be as inclined to reflexively focus on the negative. The New York Times might actually find incidents of progress to report if Democrats have something to do with that progress. I truly believe that many of the problems we have had as the war has progressed have sprung from the media undermining the war effort, which has played a major part in the lack of public support for the war. I am firmly convinced that, if the terrorist and insurgent elements in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, as well as everyday Iraqi citizens, believed without a doubt that America was solidly united in common purpose, despite political differences, we would be seeing much more progress and cooperation from people in the ME--many of whom are now afraid to throw their lot in with democracy, for fear democracy will fail, the U.S. will leave, and they will be abandoned to face Islamist wrath. Perhaps (and I acknowledge it is a "perhaps" of limited promise), if the Democrats in Congress can find it in themselves to work toward complete victory in Iraq, the media can find it in themselves to acknowledge that victory, and not sabotage it from the outset.

I say, give the Dems all the credit they want, let them bask in the glow of their own virtue, merit and superior answers, just let Iraq be a free and peaceful nation at the end of the day. President Bush, by this change in his Cabinet, is doing what he can to make that possible. Reality is calling. I hope the Democrats respond in kind.

And The Meme Goes On

Kedley and I are still in manual labor mode. I'll post something of more substance when I get the chance. In the meantime, the partial release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report is making headlines with its claims that there was no Saddam connection to al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war. It is the ongoing "Bush lied" meme, being given another go-round by the media, this time using the Intelligence Committee report as its authority. Thomas Joscelyn, at The Weekly Standard, however, says the "new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions." He cites other evidence and sources, and makes a pretty good case that the Committee didn't really do the job of fact-finding it claimed to do, and gave credence to sources it should have taken with a truckload of salt, or at the very least questioned more closely.

I've never bought the "Bush lied" mantra. I heard too many of his speeches in their entirety to believe that any one reason was the driving force behind our deposing of Saddam. Bush never claimed that Saddam was connected to 9/11, nor that Saddam and al Qaeda were working hand in hand, merely that there had been some contact between Saddam's regime and bin Laden's organization. There is no question that the two had some goals in common. However, neither WMD, or a Saddam link to al Qaeda were the exclusive reason for taking us to war. There were many, no matter whether some choose to forget that for political reasons, including the fact Saddam had defied the conditions of the cease-fire at the end of the first Gulf war for over a decade.

Another thing which contradicts the premise that the President took us to war under false pretenses is the number of Senators who supported the war in the first place, who did so on the same evidence used by Bush, but now find it politically inconvenient to stand on their decision. Too many of the war's current opponents switched sides when it became unpopular with their constituents. They are now trying to justify this switch by claiming their original information was faulty. Joscelyn casts doubt on their claims. As I said, I've never believed that Bush pulled a fast one on everybody just so he could get oil, or revenge, or whatever else his motives supposedly were. None of those motivations make sense to me, so maybe Joscelyn's preaching to the choir here, but read the Weekly Standard article anyway. It should at least confirm that there's more to the debate than what's in the report from the Senate Committee. The Saddam, al Qaeda link question is only one part of the "why we went to war" equation, but with every piece it's important that we get it right, and it's important that we consider all the evidence. Joscelyn doesn't think the Committee did.

Personal note: Here I was intending to just pop up the link and a short paragraph to tell y'all what it was about. This whole blogging thing takes on a life of its own. I just can't seem to stop myself from letting those darned opinions loose, even when I have other pressing work to do. Okay, this time I really am heading out to work. I'm going now. This is me going. I've almost torn myself away. Come on Kat, a little self-control!! Bye.

Helping The Bad Guy

Yesterday I linked to an article by Michael Barone, which examines America's "covert enemies"--i.e. those Americans who choose to focus on what's wrong with their country and its actions in history, rather than acknowledge any of the good in the nation most of the world's refugees would vote "the one to which I'd most like to emigrate." These same people don't really want to see the Islamofascist enemy win the war we are in, because they wouldn't want to live in the world he would create, but they would still like to see us lose, because really we deserve it. On some level we are the bad guys, and the conflict really is all our fault anyway, or thus the reasoning goes.

Power Line has an example of something similar, but on an international scale. It seems that some people, supposedly on the side of truth, justice, and liberty, won't cross a line to confront, or even discuss, obvious corruption with programs like the U.N.'s Oil for Food fiasco, or the threat posed by the current regime in Iran, because it would mean giving aid and comfort to President Bush. The idea goes like this: "I didn't want to admit that there was massive corruption between Saddam Hussein and U.N. officials in the Oil for Food program, because that would have supported Bush's case for war." What brilliant reasoning. Did it ever occur to them that if they had reported it, the corruption might have been stopped and then the sanctions might actually have been effective, weakening the regime and its financial ability to create WMD, thus lessening the need for war?!! Can you imagine not reporting a child molester because doing so would help the police officer who gave you a speeding ticket? It's about the same mentality--helping the bad guy, so the good guy won't win. Why don't they just join the Taliban and get it over with?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Everybody Needs A Mentor

We were discussing in the comments of an earlier post the role of technology in the Islamist world. One commenter wrote about terrorists' use of the Internet, how many terrorist websites have sprung up over the last decade or so, and another commented on what a shame it is that regimes such as Iran don't use technology to benefit their citizens, but rather fear its potential to give information to the masses, so they end up arresting bloggers and destroying satellite dishes. It's an odd combination, don't you think? One arm of Islamofascism fears the effects of technology, and the other is anxious to use it for their own twisted purposes. One can only hope that what Jesus said in Matthew 12:25, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand," applies to terrorists, fascist regimes, and the Internet.

Anyway, the comment about mushrooming terrorist websites made me take note of this Weekly Standard article, by Emily Hunt, who writes about the effectiveness of terrorists who forgo the usual camp training and go in for do-it-yourself bomb making and the like. What she has to say is on some levels encouraging. She makes the case that Internet-trained terrorists generally turn out not to be very good at it. Bomb-making is apparently a tricky business, frought with peril:

Even the savviest of terrorists have a low attack success rate, and Murphy's law--that everything that can go wrong, will--applies to terrorists and law enforcement alike. Inexperienced individuals are especially prone to error during the planning stage, and bomb construction remains one of the most daunting obstacles. Minor miscalculations in constructing an explosive device can result in significant setbacks, injury, or even death. Since September 11, hundreds of aspiring terrorists all over the world have been killed by the premature detonation of their own bombs.

Hunt says that it's not just the practicalities of bomb-making and the like that cyber-trained terrorists lack. She explains the benefits of learning from seasoned instructors:

But the psychological benefits of training and mentorship may be as important as the tactical ones. Learning from an expert can provide a novice with the necessary confidence to keep his cool and evade law enforcement. Time at a training camp also creates an opportunity for ideological indoctrination and interaction with a community of dedicated militants, which can galvanize the will of a young operative.

Okay, so the ones who go it on their own are going to be more likely to crack under scrutiny, and bail on the whole "martyrdom" thing when the chips are down. Good. That's what I like to hear. I vote for the do-it-yourself movement. Maybe more of these poor deluded souls will lose their nerve before they reach the actual exploding stage of their self-imposed missions, or at least be dumb enough about it that they get caught before the big bang.

If only that were the end of it. While Hunt's assertion that isolated individuals picking up the terrorist trade from online instructions lack the skills and will required to make their plotting truly effective is something of a comfort, her article doesn't stop with a big sigh of relief. On the contrary, she looks at where the proper training is to be had. It turns out, many terrorist roads lead to Pakistan. The recent arrests of the would-be plane bombers have led straight to Pakistan, and highlighted Pakistan's, and President Pervez Musharraf's, bi-polar approach to terrorism:

Pakistan has a history of supporting militant groups in the region that long pre-dates Musharraf--a policy originally conceived to help counter-balance India's regional power. However, in the post-September 11 environment, Pakistan now has an interest in reining in those same militants, both to avoid provoking the United States and to assure the stability of Musharraf's regime. Simultaneously, the Pakistanis wish to maintain the militants as leverage against neighboring countries.

Hunt points out that the U.S. is generally pleased with the Pakistani government's cooperation on terrorism. The latest airplane plot was foiled with their assistance. However, and here's where it gets weird, the Pakistani government fears the terrorist element because of that cooperation, and yet wants on some level to keep them around as a way to keep India in check. Once again we are faced with a house divided. Pakistan is going to have to make up its mind on this one, hopefully coming down on the side of denying the terrorists a place to lay their heads. Hunt suggests that the recent arrests in London, which, as I said, lead back to Pakistan, should urge the U.S. to apply pressure in that direction:

This thwarted attack suggests that the United States must exert more pressure on reluctant states to crack down on terrorist sanctuaries and sympathizers. At the same time, the Bush administration must do more to assist those states that have the will but not the capability to fight terrorism. From Pakistan to Lebanon to the Sahara desert, this week's close call demonstrates that denying terrorist's sanctuary has never been more important.

Clearly, Hunt is right. If terrorists truly are less capable of carrying out their wretched plans without the benefit of mentoring, and the camps which provide the environment for that mentoring, then President Bush's original premise that we must confront any nation that gives them haven is even more crucial. I also think she is right in calling for the administration to assist those nations that have the will but not the capability to fight terrorism. What's been happening in Lebanon springs quickly to mind. Not every nation that has terrorists wreaking havoc in their land are inherently agreeable to the situation, and we don't need to threaten to bomb them to kingdom come to elicit their cooperation. As we've already determined, learning, oddly enough, from the example of terrorists, everybody needs a mentor. Some of these countries we really just need to stand firmly beside, without wavering, and assure them of our determination to assist them in their struggle--and then back it up with the actual "standing beside them" part. (Much like the U.N. is not doing in Lebanon.) Herein, of course, lies the rub. Determination and not wavering in our aid of them, as we take our mutual stand, can only happen if we ourselves are not a house divided. Judging from U.S. politics of late, that's a pipe dream. We're not only a house divided; the parts of the house are on floating islands growing farther apart by the minute. What I'm hoping is that there are enough of us on the "determined" island to make us able to stand, that our combined wills can bring us to anchor, and that the place we come to anchor is the right one.

Africa And AIDS

Here's some good news about Africa and AIDS. John Donnelly is writing at the Boston Globe that the program that President Bush started three years ago to help fight AIDS in Africa is bearing fruit. He quotes Dr. John Idoko, a doctor in Nigeria who treats thousands of HIV-positive patients, as giving credit to the President's program for having an effect on HIV prevention and treatment in Africa with which nothing else compares. His own practice has changed dramatically. Three years ago, according to Donnelly, Idoko frequently "made rounds in a hospital packed with people dying from AIDS because they couldn't pay for the antiretroviral drugs necessary to keep them alive." Now there are drugs available to treat the over 6,000 HIV positive patients in his rapidly expanding clinic:

The major reason for Idoko's success is the Bush administration's AIDS program, which in the last three years has sent billions of dollars to Africa and helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. When I moved to Africa three years ago, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was just getting off the ground. As I return to Washington this month, the $15 billion program is just hitting its stride, and many Africans believe it has become the single most effective initiative in fighting the deadly scourge.

I remember watching the State of the Union address at which President Bush announced the initiative and thinking what a good thing it was, but wondering whether it could possibly have any effect. Then I watched the reactions over time from various aid groups and political organizations, some of which said it was a diversion of money that our country needed for itself and far too free a use of American largess, not to mention fruitless considering the enormity of the task, and others which said it wasn't nearly enough and the President was being stingy, again because of the enormity of the task--the latter despite the fact that (as far as I know) it was the most generous gift to date toward fighting AIDS in Africa. It's encouraging to know that there are people on the ground in AIDS ravaged Africa who are definitely seeing concrete advances in battling the disease as a result of those American dollars. The Nigerian doctor is certainly appreciative. "`The greatest impact in HIV prevention and treatment in Africa is PEPFAR-there's nothing that compares,' Idoko said."

Donnelly's article then takes an interesting turn. He takes a look at the ongoing discussion of AIDS in Africa coming from the rest of the world. It seems there is controversy in international Aids policy circles centered around an objection to the amount of money in the Bush program that goes toward promoting abstinence and fidelity as part of AIDS prevention. It's not really that they object to a certain amount of abstinence education, but some aid groups think too many of the program's dollars are being spent on reaching people with the abstinence/fidelity message. (Okay, brief opinion moment here. What more effective way is there of counteracting the scourge of the HIV virus than not getting it in the first place? Using funds to reach kids while they are still young enough to learn the lesson before the school of hard knocks has a chance to teach it to them is not only prudent, but extremely cost effective in the long run.)

Another controversy that Donnelly mentions is the objection of many AIDS activists to U.S. cooperation with faith-based groups in implementing its AIDS treatment and prevention efforts. My question to them is how many hospitals and hospices are there around the world, including America, that weren't at least started by some religious group or other? Do they think that impoverished African governments are tossing loads of money at building hospitals and clinics? I suppose we could send the US contribution through the UN, or some other world body, but we've seen how well that's gone in the past. Anyone remember Oil For Food? Fortunately, Donnelly says that pragmatism prevents this cooperation with faith-based organizations from being the issue in Africa that it is to the rest of the world. Faith-based services are frequently the only ones available, and the situation is desperate enough that people need whatever help they can get. Donnelly quotes one Zambian man as saying that he's already lost 15 friends to AIDS, and that he's now an old man by his country's standards. He's 34.

Regardless of the objections of people who don't want religious groups and abstinence education to have such prominent places in US AIDS fighting efforts, by Donnelly's reckoning, the program's working. I for one am truly pleased by the progress, and can honestly say I think it's a worthy use of my tax dollars (and that's not an easy thing to get me to say.) I suspect, however, I'm not nearly as pleased as Dr. Idoko and others like him. They're seeing first hand their work, and American dollars, saving lives. Hopefully for the next generation in Africa, 34 won't be considered old age.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update: Not all of Africa is seeing an improvement in the AIDS situation. South Africa has been living in denial on the issue of AIDS, and her people are bearing the consequences.

Persective Is Everything

You know the freaky little tendency where you buy a new car (or at least new to you), and then you see that model everywhere you go? It's like the roads are suddenly filled with Civic hatchbacks, or whatever your car du jour happens to be. My husband and I have been experiencing that phenomenon on an entirely different level lately. Since we're in the middle of our own building project (the oft-mentioned garage/shop), we've been noticing new construction everywhere. There's a new Asian market/mini mall going in near our house, which is causing much rejoicing in Meowville, because my husband loves to cook Thai food, and you just can't beat a good Asian market for fresh herbs and vegetables. There's a giant 24 Hour Fitness going in near his office, which might come in handy for burning off all the phad thai noodles the new market will engender. There are office buildings and retail outlets springing from the ground like demented jack rabbits, new housing projects galore, and, it being the all too brief pot-hole repair season in Portland, road crews are making life miserable for commuters all over the City of Roses.

I'm still hearing complaints about our lousy economy, though--complaints still largely settled on how Bush is leading us to hell in a hand-basket, with his tax cuts for the rich and all. I've wondered where all this construction can be coming from, if things are indeed as bad as the woe-is-me set would have us believe. So, I read an article today with great interest which pointed to the signs that things are flowing along quite nicely with the American economy, thank you very much. Jed Graham, at Investor's Business Daily, has a rundown of how we're doing as a country economically, and where we're headed.

The first big news is that we're ahead of schedule in terms of deficit reduction, at least ahead of the schedule that President Bush proposed when the economy was still looking pretty shaky in 2004. At that point, he promised to cut the deficit in half by 2009, but it looks like that promise might be fulfilled three years early. Jumping revenue, due to increased wages and salaries, and corporate income taxes that have risen by 30% over last year, are filling the national coffers. (Well okay, making them less empty.) That's not the corporate tax rate that's gone up 30%; that's the taxes generated by the same rate applied to a bustling economy:

Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal '06 than in any other such period over the past 25 years — except for last year's 15.5% jump.

The 2006 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion at this time last year. Spending is up $130 billion, or 7.9%.

Did you catch the part about tax receipts increasing by more than they have at any time (except last year) in 25 years? This despite the lowered tax rate. That means that there's a lot of profit to be taxed, and higher wages to be taxed as well. That means we're headed toward lower deficits (as long as the politicians don't go on a spending spree.) An interesting note in Graham's article was that increased salaries in the higher tax brackets led to the most gains, in terms of individual taxes, for the government's piggy bank. Because those in the upper brackets earn more, they pay more:

While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

This dispels the tax cuts for the rich myth, if ultimately the rich end up paying a higher percentage of the tax burden as a result of the cuts. Looks to me like the evidence is pretty solidly in the camp of tax cuts stimulating the economy, which is good for the federal bottom line. People and corporations make more money, and pay more taxes. Everybody wins.

According to Graham, budget experts claim that economic growth can't wipe out the entire deficit on its own. That makes sense. If the budget hawks in Washington (or is that an oxymoron?--no, I'm sure there are a few) don't throw their weight around a little more, the spenders will always find a way to keep the government in the red. However, the growth is encouraging, and remember that a good deal of the deficit also has come from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully, those conflicts will cost less and less as the new governments in those countries continue to gain strength. Of course, we will always have military needs, the world being filled with sinful humans, inclined to exercise their free will.

So, if the economy is continuing to gain ground at a beating-the-predictions rate, why is there the perception for some that things are still so bad? Well, part of it is probably individual experience. It's hard to tell someone that just lost their job that the economy is booming, even if their job got cut because of hot new technologies that made the job obsolete. It doesn't matter to most people if ten people got new jobs at the time they lost theirs. We each see things from our own little corner of reality. Another reason for the idea that the economy is bad is that certain areas of the economy only gain our notice when we're not happy with them. Gas prices for example are very much on the national radar. It's ironic actually that high gas prices stem to a certain extent from the economy doing well. Everyone wants to go someplace or ship something, driving up the price. Of all the possible reasons that some people still think we're on the verge of economic ruin , however, Instapundit has hit on one of the most plausible, striking me as pretty darned accurate anyway. While linking to the Investor's Business Daily article that I've cited here, he points out the New York Times take on the deficit being cut in half three years early:

MORE BAD NEWS FOR BUSH: "Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early."

The New York Times headline: "Bush deficit reduction plan falls off-schedule."

Perspective is everything. For some people, no matter how good the news, it's all in how you spin it.

Update: James Glassman is also examining this trend of Americans' economic perspective not lining up with the facts, and drawing some interesting conclusions.

Iraqi Security

I don't have much time for reading right now. We have an excavator coming this week to start prepping the ground for our new play room (you know, the shop we're building.) I did catch this news tidbit this morning, though. It seems that there's a bit of momentum being gained in Iraq, coinciding with the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and a surprise visit to Baghdad by President Bush. The visit by the President was expected to last about five hours, and included a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to discuss future steps in achieving security for the country. Associated Press writer Kim Gamel writes today that Iraq's new prime minister is promising to show "no mercy" to terrorists:

Security officials said tens of thousands of Iraqi and multinational forces would deploy Wednesday throughout Baghdad, securing roads, launching raids against insurgent hideouts and calling in airstrikes if necessary.

It looks like the new Iraqi government is starting to get serious about securing the more dangerous areas in Baghdad, which is at the heart of ongoing terrorist activity. Gamel went on to say:

Iraqi security forces planned to deploy 75,000 Iraqi and multinational forces in Baghdad as part of al-Maliki's ambitious plan to crack down on security in the capital, a top Iraqi police official said.

Bush's visit came on the final day of a two-day work session aimed at keeping up the momentum generated by last week's swearing-in of key Iraqi national security officials, and the U.S. airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Mahdi al-Gharrawi, the commander of public order forces under the Interior Ministry, said al-Maliki's plan includes securing roads in and out of Baghdad, banning personal weapons and implementing a 9 p.m.-6 a.m. curfew.

Al-Gharrawi told The Associated Press that the plan to be launched at 6 a.m. Wednesday would be the biggest operation of its kind in Baghdad since the U.S. handed over sovereignty to Iraq in 2004.

Although the country is not there yet, Iraq continues to make strides toward a fully functioning society. With the new government in place, there are escalating efforts to establish safety for its citizens. The Iraqi government is also taking steps to clarify to citizens which of the forces operating in the city are actually government employees, rather than "sectarian death squads" believed to have infiltrated the legitimate police. Special uniforms and badges will distinguish the real deal from the impostors. It may seem like standard operating procedure to anyone growing up Averageville, Anystate, USA, but this country is just starting to operate in anything like an organized fashion. Checkpoints and raids of terrorist strongholds are also in the offing, something we don't generally see much of in Averageville. These are some important steps for the government to be taking, especially as they take more and more responsibility for their own security concerns.

Some of the intended raids will be carried out based on intelligence gathered from the "safe" house where Zarqawi met his end. Officials expect terrorist action in Iraq to increase substantially in the weeks to come, in revenge for the death of Zarqawi, and, in fact, it has increased already. The government, however, is taking action of its own, according to Gamel:

More than 200 raids have been carried out since al-Zarqawi's death June 7, some directly connected to what the U.S. military has described as a "treasure trove" of intelligence gleaned from his safehouse. U.S. troops killed seven insurgents in a raid Monday that also killed two children not far from the U.S. bombing raid that killed al-Zarqawi.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, also said a "high-value individual" with a $50,000 price on his head was detained. He did not name the suspect, but said he was picked up based on a tip.

That's good news. The more terrorists they capture, the more information they obtain, leading to the capture of more terrorists, which leads to more information. It's a bit like a perpetual motion machine, except that the intended goal is to stop all terrorist motion completely. Hopefully the momentum will continue to swing in the direction of increased security. It certainly looks like both the Iraqi and U.S. governments are making a concerted effort toward that end.

Can't See The Forest For The Trees

I learned an interesting piece of trivia as I was reading an article in The Weekly Standard, written by James Thayer, called Fire On The Mountain. Did you know that during World War II there was more than one Japanese attack on Oregon? News to me. According to Thayer, in September of 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy tried to burn it down, in a manner of speaking:

The Los Angeles Times' banner headline read "REPORT OREGON BOMBING. Jap Aircraft Carrier Believed Sunk." It was September 15, 1942. A seaplane had been spotted near Mt. Emily, Oregon, nine miles north of Brookings. A forest fire had been started near the mountain. Harold Gardner, a forest service lookout, rushed to the area and quickly extinguished the flames.

Then a forest service patrol found a foot-deep crater. Nearby were forty pounds of spongy pellets and metal fragments, some of which were stamped with Japanese ideograms. A metal nosecone was also found.

That same day a Japanese submarine was sited in the Pacific thirty miles off the Oregon coast due west of Mt. Emily. An Army patrol plane bombed the sub, but results of the bombing were unknown.

Less than a year after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese had set out to strike a blow against the American mainland, but they failed to cause a massive fire in the dry Oregon forest.

I'm glad they didn't succeed. One of the joys of my life is all the natural beauty that surrounds me here in my home state. It's an interesting bit of historical flotsam, though. Of course, nowadays even most homegrown Oregonians (from a sampling of one--me) haven't heard about the attempt to set our stomping ground on fire, or Oregon's place in the history books (Wikipedia) as the object of "the first aerial bombing of mainland America by a foreign power," from an earlier attack on Fort Stevens in June of the same year. So, why does Thayer bring up this minor element of WWII history? Precisely because it didn't work. The forest failed to burn. In 1942, a single Forest Service lookout managed to extinguish the flame.

Thayer uses this to contrast with today. In the last few years we have had some major fires; the Biscuit fire, which burned in 2002, being one example of many. Once started, "It burned for the next five and a half months, destroying half a million acres of forest." So why the difference? What made one fire so easy to put out, and another turn into a five month nightmare? Thayer says it's an issue of forest health:

A hundred years ago, each acre of a ponderosa pine forest contained about 25 mature trees. A horse-drawn wagon could be driven through the forest without the aid of a road. Ponderosa pine is intolerant of shade, and the trees grow aggressively toward the sun, throwing shadows that discourage growth below. Today that same forest might have 1,000 trees per acre. Usually these are Douglas firs, which prosper in shade, and which grow in thick stands, often so dense that a hiker cannot pass between the trunks.

As a result of this fuel load (Forest Service terminology), forest fires today are entirely unlike those of a century ago. They are hotter, faster, and more destructive. Today, 190 million acres of public forests are at an elevated risk of fires, and twenty-four million acres are at the highest risk of catastrophic fire.

What happened to the forests? Why did they degrade? Two main reasons: the suppression of small fires that destroy weak trees and underbrush and that create fire breaks, and a lack of thinning. Which is to say, logging. The failure to cull the forests has left them little more than kindling.

This all leaves the question: why have our forests been so neglected? By Thayer's reckoning it is due to the enormous amount of regulation brought about by the efforts of an aggressive environmental lobby, and an overwhelming number of expensive lawsuit challenges to Forest Service action. "Only one in ten of the Forest Service's decisions to thin a forest is reversed by a court on appeal." However, that hasn't stopped the suits from coming and causing extensive delays in the work of promoting less fire-susceptible forests.

President Bush's response was to propose new legislation. In August of 2002, "...the president proposed his Healthy Forests Initiative, which Congress soon passed as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The President signed it into law on December 3, 2003." It streamlined the red tape, and directed the courts, in various ways, to speed up all the processes involved in moving forward with Forest Service actions, including limiting how long a proposed thinning could be tied up in court. Needless to say, President Bush was accused of what I will call "pandering to big logging." Many environmentalists were not happy with this new direction in forest management. However, Thayer asks the pertinent question:

Does thinning work? In early May 2004, 35 acres of the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge were given a "fuels treatment," as the Department of Interior calls thinning the stands of trees and removing dry brush. On May 11--a week later--lightening started a fire which the wind drove toward Ortonville, Minnesota. But the thinned forest provided the fire fighters with staging areas and fire breaks, and allowed them to quickly suppress the fire. Only 350 acres were burned.

It's anecdotal, I know, but does provide some evidence that this approach might be effective in preventing small fires from becoming major ones. This next bit is anecdotal, too. Last summer my husband and I were hiking on the Oregon coast. We took a trail through what we guessed was a stand of 50-60 year old trees that was so densely packed that, without the old road we were on, we would not have been able to pass through those woods. It was dry and full of brush, and we thought at the time what a fire hazard it was. Moreover, we couldn't see how there was any way that stand of trees could survive to maturity intact. They were simply too tightly grouped to get much bigger, unless they melded into a single solid, a contiguous mass. Either people are going to have to thin them, or God is.

I love the Pacific Northwest and all its wonderful forest land. I am glad that it wasn't burned down in 1942, and I'd like to see it preserved now. I am in complete sympathy with the desire of environmental groups to preserve our beautiful natural environment and the wildlife it shelters. The stumbling block is a matter of method. We will not preserve our forests by neglecting them, or by refusing to see that cutting down the few may save the many. The attempt is ongoing by some in the environmental movement to impede the thinning of at-risk woodlands. Although they are losing some of their support, those most determined to prevent forest thinning are still waging their campaign, and still not seeing the forest for the trees. I'll give James Thayer the last word:

Even reliable friends are deserting the extreme environmentalists on this issue. The liberal San Francisco Chronicle said that "leaving forests alone equates to watching them burn," and lamented that the enviros "still cling to no-action ideologies."

But facts don't mean much to ideologues. In Montana, the first major plan under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is to remove the fuel load from the Middle East Fork drainage area in the Bitterroot National Forest. The Missoulian reports that the plan calls for logging 6,400 acres out of the area's 26,000 acres. In April, the Missoulian cautioned, "Some people view commercial logging the way others might regard loan-sharking in a cathedral."

Sure enough, earlier this month, Friends of the Bitterroot, the Ecology Center, and the Native Forest Network filed a suit against the Forest Service seeking an injunction.

The President Speaks...

I had a guest this afternoon, so I missed President Bush's speech on illegal immigration and border enforcement. Instapundit to the rescue. He has the text of the speech for those of us who failed our civic duty test and were otherwise engaged. A few things the President said encouraged me.

1) He called illegal immigrants illegal immigrants, and acknowledged that we have a problem with our borders. (Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.)

2) He said the government is increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, and implementing increased use of modern technology. He says he intends to have the National Guard shore up the Border Patrol until more agents and new technologies can be employed.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world – and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

My response to this part of the speech? It's about time.

3) He said they're working on ending the "catch and release" cycle. (An illegal immigrant is caught. For various reasons they can't be immediately sent back to their country of origin. There aren't enough facilities to hold them while the legalities gods are appeased . They are released on their own recognizance, and told to come back to court on a certain date. Shockingly, they don't report as ordered. They are now roofing your neighbor's house.) My response to "We're working on it"? Work faster and harder.

4) An identification card for workers who are here legally that uses current technology to advantage, for example digital fingerprints, is a step forward. It would help both employers and law enforcement make sure that employees are here legally, and leave employers with less excuse for putting their pocketbook above national security.

5) On the "what to do about the people who are already here" front, I find pros and cons in what he said, but can agree wholeheartedly with one point that he made in particular. We need to make learning English a requirement for citizenship.

...we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery … from cleaning offices to running offices … from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams ... they renew our spirit ... and they add to the unity of America.

6) He called on the Senate to address this issue quickly and not to make political gain their goal.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue – and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

I have very little hope that anyone in office will actually heed this part of the speech. Just as water doesn't flow uphill, Congress doesn't ignore its own political interests, but I still think it needs to be said, and said often.

If you want more, go read the rest of the speech. For what it's worth, here's my two cents. I still struggle with the idea of letting people who came here illegally pay a fine and stay in the country, while others who have obeyed our laws before even coming here wait in third world limbo. There's a part of me that remembers playground arguments where everybody's goal was finding what was fair, at least from their perspective, and giving cuts was always on the "that's no fair" list. There's also the question of what we are saying to potential citizens if we wink at the fact that their first act in American society was to break the law. I recognize the difficulty of deporting millions of people, many of whom have children who are citizens. The issue is enormously complicated, and that's why we have people protesting from every conceivable angle. It will take a great deal of compromise, in the best sense of the word, to bring this situation to its much needed resolution. Maybe the President's speech, and his position on the issue will prove somewhat helpful to that end. I think the speech was generally adequate, and would like to see much of what the President said enacted. I think most of it should have been already, quite frankly, but I'm firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. With so much political decision-making being driven by polls and protests, and with the polls and protests being so contradictory, I'm not sure whether we're going to end up with a security fence on our border, or a shuttle bus.

A Gracious Response

Scrappleface has the unofficial scoop on President Bush's response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 18 page letter. Don't miss it. You'll be sorry. Well, actually, you won't be sorry, because you won't know what you're missing, but if you did know what you were missing, you would be sorry. Of course, if you did know what you were missing, it would be because you had read it, so you wouldn't have missed it, and this whole conversation would be pointless. On the other hand...okay, I'll just stop now.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Is President Bush' s New Pen Pal

Last week I wrote about an article I read by Lee Harris concerning the resurgence of socialist thought in Latin America. In it, Harris discussed Carl Marx's belief that "the would-be revolutionary had to learn to be patient; he had to wait until the capitalist system had failed on its own account, and only then would he be able to play out his historical role." Apparently, according to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that day has arrived. The New York Times reports on a charming communication from Iran's leader, to President Bush, sent through the Swiss embassy in Tehran.

Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented ''an ever-increasing global hatred'' of the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter, saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's suspect nuclear program.

The letter coincides with negotiations currently underway in the U.N. Security Council regarding Iran's nuclear program, which Iran insists is only for producing electricity, despite its enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. The U.S. and its European allies are looking to "restrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions." China and Russia are resisting movement toward sanctions or threat of force to "send a message to Iran that its pursuit of uranium enrichment must be suspended to allay international concerns that it is pursuing nuclear weapons." Instead, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Tuesday, "We hope relevant sides can show flexibility, restraint and calmness in order to create favorable conditions for the resumption of talks." The letter from Ahmadinejad looks likely to be used by the Chinese and Russians to support their position. Needless to say, it doesn't look like the talks in the Security Council will be wrapping up any time soon.

The Times article also contains some of the text of the unofficially released letter to President Bush. (Let's call a spade a spade here. It was leaked.) The letter largely ignores the nuclear issue, focusing for the most part on the various perceived failings and flaws of democratic America, including the standard declarations that the U.S. is a Zionist puppet. The part of the letter that would probably be of most interest to Marx is its conclusion that democracy has reached its expiration date.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy ''have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity,'' according to the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press late Monday from diplomats who declined to be identified because the text had not formally been made public.

''Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems,'' it read.

Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying hatred is increasing worldwide of the United States, and history shows how ''repressive and cruel governments do not survive.''

I'm sure Marx would be pleased to see there are those in the Middle East who are taking up his banner, although I doubt a theocracy is what he had in mind to replace liberal democracy. Satirist Scott Ott of Scrappleface has his own translation of the letter from Iran's president. It includes a list of things the U.S. can do to help ease the tensions with the Iranian regime.

5) Wipe Israel off the face of the map. Replace with goat ranch.
4) U.S. buys Iranian oil. I make threatening statements causing uncertainty in petroleum markets. We use the windfall profits to pay Russia to help us make nuclear devices, and to pay China to stop U.N. sanctions. U.S. continues to buy Iranian oil.
3) Get U.N. to adopt ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding uranium enrichment.
2) Put Zionists in boxcars. Send back to Europe. Replace Israel with goat ranch.
1) U.S. joins global Muslim Caliphate, ensuring peace and bountiful supplies of enriched uranium for all of Allah’s people.

The New York Times article may be a bit more factually accurate than Scrappleface, reporting what the letter actually said. However, I'd be willing to bet that Scott Ott's translation hits closer to what the letter meant.

Update: May 10, 2006 My apologies. Yesterdays NYT article appears to have become fishwrap, even online. I tried to hunt it down, but can't find the same article in their archives. The link seems to be lost at Scrappleface as well. I'm not sure if this is a consistent NYT thing, that their links don't stay linked, but I'll have to keep that in mind in the future when referencing their articles.

Update II: Michael Rosen, at TCS Daily, has a good summary of the letter, and what it reveals about the regime in Iran.