Minor Thoughts from me to you

I was given a copy of Pastor John Piper's book -- The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace -- for my birthday. Pastor Piper wrote the back as a series of short chapters, intended to be read one a day. I've been attempting to do so.

Over the next couple of weeks, I'd like to blog about my thoughts as I read through the book.

Chapter One -- The Debtor's Ethic: Should We Try to Pay God Back?

In this chapter, Pastor Piper addresses the popular idea that we should obey God out of gratitude for our salvation. Piper calls this the debtor's ethic:

The debtor's ethic says, "Because you have done something good for me, I feel indebted to do something good for you." This impulse is not what gratitude was designed to produce. God meant gratitude to be a spontaneous expression of pleasure in the gift and the good will of another. He did not mean it to be an impulse to return favors. If gratitude is twisted into a sense of debt, it gives birth to the debtor's ethic -- and the effect is to nullify grace.

What's gone wrong? It's not wrong to feel gratitude when someone gives us a gift. The trouble starts with the impulse that now we owe a "gift". What this feeling does is turn gifts into legal currency. Subtly the gift is no longer a gift but a business transaction. And what was offered as free grace is nullified by distorted gratitude.

Piper goes on to demonstrate that nowhere in Scripture is gratitude given as a reason for obedience. Rather, the people throughout the Bible are condemned for their lack of faith -- not their lack of gratitude. (Numbers 14:11; Deut 1:31-32; Psalm 78:15,17,22.) Rather, Piper says, we should obey God out of a faith in future grace.

Faith in future grace is the secret that keeps impulses of gratitude from turning into the debtor's ethic. True gratitude exults in the riches of God's grace as it looks back on the benefits it has received. By cherishing past grace in this way, it inclines the heart to trust in future grace. We might say that gratitude has a strong appetite for the enjoyment of looking back on the outpourings of God's grace. Since God does this future outpouring through faith, therefore gratitude sends its impulses of delight into faith in future grace. This is expressed in the words: lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord (Psalm 116:12-14). Gratitude exults in the past benefits of God and says to faith, "Embrace more of these benefits for the future, so that my happy work of looking back on God's deliverance may continue."

Chapter Two: When Gratitude Malfunctions

A Filipino Insight

Pastor Piper starts chapter two with an anecdote about encountering a missionary to the Philippines. She told about the Filipino concept of utang na loob. She said "To a Filipino, to show a lack of due gratitude is outrageous; being grateful is almost second nature to him. His sense of utang na loob defines his integrity as a person in the context of social relationships." Unfortunately, this debt lasts a lifetime -- it is difficult to measure the extent of the debt, and thus impossible to every pay the debt off. The debtor lives in a constant state of obligation and has no hope of ever being freed from the debt.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for Christians to fall into this trap. We try to serve God out of gratitude, but know that we can never retire the debt. Thus we are always concerned about what we must do for Him, not what He will do for us.

In chapter one, Pastor Piper demonstrated that faith in future grace is the antidote to the debtor's ethic. Piper uses chapter two to demonstrate that the New Testament is even more more explicit on the subject of future grace than the New Testament is.

Romans 9:31-32; Hebrews 11:7,8,27,33; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Galatians 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Thess 2:13. None of these passages mention gratitude as an inspirtation for obedience. All mention faith. This truth liberates us forever from the need to repay God through our service. Instead, we can look forward to God providing us with what we need to service Him.

The main problem here is that the past-orientation of the debtor's ethic tends to blind us to the infinite, never-ending, inexhaustible, uninterrupted flow of future grace from this moment to eternity. This grace is there in the future to be trusted and lived on. It is there to give the motivation and power for our obedience. This infinite overflow of God's grace is dishonored when we fail to appropriate it by faith in future grace. Gratitude is not designed for this. Faith is. Past grace is glorified by intense and joyful gratitude. Future grace is glorified by intense and joyful confidence. This faith is what frees us and empowers us for venturesome obedience in the cause of Christ.

How does this play out in actual practice? Chapter three provides a clue. But more on that later.

Today's Capital Times had a heartwarming little article about homeless activists and their endless crusade to wring money out of everyone else.

Members of the Tenant Advocacy Group, or TAG, already know about homelessness. Each was once homeless, or narrowly escaped being out on the street. "We learned these things from the inside out," said Cynthia Travis, coordinator for the group.

That's good. These people are uniquely situated to help the poor and the homeless. Their goals are absolutely praiseworthy. Unfortunately, their methods are not.

The group entered the fray of state legislative politics this year by sending a letter to Secretary of Commerce Mary Burke requesting a $1 million-a-year increase in state funding for homeless shelter and transitional housing services grants. The Commerce department administers the grant program, funding for which has been $1.5 million a year for some 15 years.

They even saw some initial success as Governor Doyle put an additional $1 million into his budget, for their cause. Then action stalled in the Joint Finance Committee:

As Joint Finance Committee actions on other issues proceeded, it unfolded that any additional funds for homelessness services would need to be funded through an increase in the real estate transfer tax. That didn't fly.

They decided to use an appeal to pity as leverage for their demands:

"I slept in a Ford station wagon for six months," Morris King recalled. The way to help unsympathetic legislators get their priorities in order, he said, is to ask them: "Do you want potholes? Or do you want people sleeping on the street?"

Here's the thing. The legislature doesn't hand out free money. Every penny that the legislature hands out has to come from somewhere and someone else. Increasing the real estate transfer tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to buy a home. Increasing the gas tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to drive. Increasing the sales tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to purchase everything. Increasing the ... well, you get the idea.

Every time the government increases taxes, it becomes more expensive for poorer people to survive on their own. For those living the closest to the financial edge, a tax increase may be the difference between survival and failure. Ultimately, these crusades are counter-productive.

It will ultimately prove fruitless to use the government to confiscate the resources of others and redistribute them to your group. You will merely drive up the cost of living in the State leading to an endless cycle of increases in government aid and increases in the cost of living. Focus on creating wealth that you can use to help others, rather than confiscating wealth.

Yesterday as I drove home, I passed by our local custard retailer. That brought back memories of Memorial Day weekend last year. We attended Brat Fest, then went over to Cold Stone for dessert. We had a blast. All because the people working at Cold Stone and Brat Fest were willing to give up their holiday for my enjoyment.

Why would they do that? Quite simply, greed. They wanted the wages they could earn more than they wanted a day off. Some of them did it because they could earn a higher than normal hourly rate. Some of them did it because it offered them a rare chance to work extra hours at their normal rate. Whatever the reason, they decided that the extra income was worth more than the leisure time.

This year, I once again anticipate being able to shop, eat, and drive on this holiday week. As I go out, the various people serving me will not be serving me out of compassion, a love for mankind, or a sense of noblesse oblige.

They are serving me because they want my money. The only legal way to get my money (or anyone's money) is to exchange goods or services for cash. Our free market system is uniquely able to channel peoples' private greed and desires into service for others. Out of self-interest, people across Madison will be working to meet the needs of the entire city this Memorial Day.

I'm thankful that we have an economic system that rewards those who work hard. I'm thankful that we have an economic system that gives everyone an incentive to meet the needs of everyone else. Aren't you?

And so, in closing, I leave you with these words.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

A lot of people obsess about the trade "deficit" between China and the U.S. (Hello Lou Dobbs.) They believe that just because we buy more from China than China buys from us, we must not be doing well at international trade. That we're not producing anything of value and they are.

Hah.

You and I run trade deficits every day of our lives. I buy far more from BrouxNellie's than BrouxNellie's buys from me. I buy far more from Copps than Copps buys from me. I buy far more from the local BP station than it buys from me. I run a deficit with every business I walk into. So do you. There is only one business I do not run a deficit with -- my employer. They purchase large chunks of my time and I purchase almost nothing from them.

These personal trade deficits are absolutely meaningless. They tell you nothing about whether or not I am producing anything of value of whether or not I'm "keeping up". International trade deficits are just as meaningless.

Finally, the deficit as a raw number is also meaningless because it doesn't take growth into effect. Chinese exports to the U.S. have been growing exponentially for some time. U.S. exports to China have also been growing exponentially. Both countries are importing more -- and getting wealthier as a result. That's something to celebrate, not something to bemoan.

From Political Calculations:

The logarithmic vertical scale may throw some off, but the growth of imports from China to the U.S. has grown exponentially in the recorded period, rising from 293.1 billion USD in January 1985 to 25,635 billion USD (or 25.6 trillion USD!) through January 2007.

Looking at the rates at which the value of trade doubles, we find that the doubling period is fairly consistent at approximately every four years.

Here, we find that the value of what the U.S. exports to China has only fully doubled in value 3 times since January 1985, rising from 319.2 billion USD in January 1995 to 4,364 billion USD (4.3 trillion USD) in January 2007. What's really remarkable is the acceleration of the doubling rate clearly visible over the period from January 1985 through January 2007.

Here, we find that for the first 10 years of the period, the value of U.S. exports grew at an average annualized compound growth rate of 7.2%. It took another 6 years and 3 months from November 1994 to January 2001 for the value of U.S. exports to China to double again.

And from January 2001 onward, we find that the value of all that the U.S. exports to China doubled again, in less than 3 years. That corresponds to an annualized compound growth rate greater than 24%. More significantly, since that last doubling period ended, we find that the U.S. has nearly doubled in the 36 months since, suggesting that the current rate of export growth has continued near this high level.

See -- we really are both getting richer. So don't worry about the trade deficit. And the next time you see Lou Dobbs fretting about the trade deficit, feel free to change the channel. I do.

The Times is surprised to learn that the recent emphasis on biofuels is making our gas more expensive.

In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

But those plans have since been scaled back to more than one million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal government.

"If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increases in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining," said John D. Hofmeister, the president of the Shell Oil Company. "Industrywide, this will have an impact."

The concerns were echoed in a recent report by Barclays Capital, which said the uncertainty about the ethanol growth "will do little to accelerate desperately needed investment in complex United States refining units."

"Indeed, it is likely to deter and further delay investment, if not rule out many refinery investments completely."

The oil companies say their views on the longer-term prospects for fuel reflect simple economics. Because of the enormous investments required to expand refineries, they say they have no other choice but to re-examine their plans in light of the calls for more ethanol fuel, regardless of how realistic they may be.

Not that any of this matters to Congress. Now that they've injected a huge dose of uncertainty into the gasoline market and driven prices sharply upwards, they're prepared to tax away any profits that might enable the oil companies to actually handle the market uncertainty. (High profits might give the companies enough of a margin to both invest in refinery capacity and invest in ethanol production. Unfortunately, profits are evil so we can't let that happen.)

Let's not forget the other place that oil industry revenues have been going:

The refining industry has also spent vast amounts "” more than $50 billion in the last 10 years "” to meet requirements to produce cleaner fuels, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main trade group.

That's a lot of money. And Congress could mandate something else in the future that will cost just as much -- or more. These are the risks that oil industry executives have to face every day of every year. When uncertainty about future expenses goes up, so do prices.

In case you think that everything will be solved if we just move from corn based ethanal to cellulosic ethanol, not so quick:

The economics of cellulosic ethanol, made from nonfood crops and agricultural waste, are also unclear. Since cellulosic ethanol, still at an experimental stage, is twice as expensive as corn-based ethanol, there are currently no commercial-scale cellulosic plants.

In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, an emphasis on ethanol might lead to increased volatility in fuel prices.

"If we get a bad corn crop, we will end up paying for it at the pump and on the food shelves," he said. "We are not buying security. We are increasing volatility."

While Congress was busy thinking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they forgot to think about reducing our dependence on fickle weather patterns. When was the last time that the entire nation had to worry about whether or not the farmers would have a bumper crop of corn? Thanks to Congress, we'll be able to experience this old-fashioned form of worry all over again.

Rather than blaming the oil industry for high gas prices, Congress needs to take a long hard look at their own behavior. Then stop it.

Two stories caught my attention this morning. First, the current immigration bill would create a work database for all Americans.

The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday...

All employers -- at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

Even parents who hire nannies might be covered. The language in the bill, called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act, defines an employer as "any person or entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States" and does not appear to explicitly exempt individuals or small businesses. (Its Senate sponsors did not immediately respond on Monday to queries on this point.)

Why is this considered a good idea? One screw-up by the government and American citizens will be legally barred from working. What kind of controls will there be on this database? How will you challenge a denial of your work authorization? How will you know that someone in Washington didn't put you into the database out of sheer spite? This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Secondly, Ed Morrissey relays the story of a sex slavery ring that exploited illegal immigrants.

The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.

When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house.

Ed has a solution for this problem:

This is a horrific case, and one which points out the need for strong border control. The men conned the women into crossing the border, and then they took advantage of their illegal status to force them into prostitution.

Sure, these women were conned and controlled because they were not legally allowed to work or live in the United States. Preventing them from coming here at all would have prevented their enslavement. On the other hand, allowing them to enter legally would have also prevented their enslavement. Placing high barriers to immigration increases the chances that people will be "helped" across the border, then exploited. Placing low barriers to immigration allows people to come to the U.S. in search of a better life, without fear of future enslavement. Why are we so eager to choose the first path and not the second?

Putting drug risks into context:

Is it riskier to take a daily aspirin, drive a car or fight fires? Turns out they all carry about the same risk -- between 10.4 and 11 fatalities per 100,000 person-years, according to a study in the May/June Health Affairs, a policy journal published by Project HOPE.

Their findings surprised them. For example, taking Vioxx (rofecoxib), which was withdrawn from the market in 2004, or Tysabri (natalizumab) for multiple sclerosis was comparable to or exceeded the risk of dying in a car crash, working as a truck driver or rock climbing.

On the other hand, it was less risky to take either drug than it was to drive a motorcycle, work as a logger or climb the Himalayas.

We removed Vioxx from the market for this?

Of the 45-50 million people in the U.S. who lack access to healthcare, only 10% lack access because they can't afford it.

We also found ... that the most common reason respondents cited for lacking a usual source of care was that they were seldom or never sick. Cost was cited by only 10.2% of respondents...Overall, 72% of the estimated 42.7 million adults without a usual source of care in 2000 apparently had little or no preference for one, and a minority (28%) appeared to prefer to have one, if they could.

By ignoring the possibility that many adults do not have a usual source of care because they either do not want one or place low value on having one, important implications and true barriers are obscured.

This is why I oppose an individual mandate. Why should I force someone to buy health insurance if they have no need for it or don't want it?

Is it a bigger problem that people can't get access to healthcare or that they when they do get access to healthcare they drive up the cost by getting services they don't need?

Here, single payer advocates like to have it both ways. On the one hand they speak of inability to get care, while simultaneously decrying that up to 50% of care is unnecessary. Which is it? Or is it both? And, again, how is it that an unelected bureaucracy, given complete authority over what care you can choose to purchase with your own money, do a better job of both MAKING people take the doctor's advice, while simultaneously preventing the 50% of care they think is uneeded? Again, single payer advocates have no answer for this other than a 'panel of experts' that will be immune from criticism from individuals, but highly susceptible to the money and efforts of aggressive lobbyists.

My pharmacist wife will sympathize with this lament about prescription refills:

I suspect a great many doctors shoot from the hip when it comes to refills. What makes me think this?

Well there's this weird little loophole in our automated refill request line where someone can request a refill and trigger an auto-fax to the doctor if the script has expired or run out of refills. It's all automatic -- no pharmacy personnel even see the refill request before it gets sent. Our computer systems aren't typically smart enough to check and see if there's a replacement prescription in patient's profile already.*

What's amusing is that often this second prescription differs from the first. Not significantly, but where the first might have 5 refills, the second has 3. Or 11. Or maybe zero. Often we'll get two scripts with the old refill number on it sent back on the same day, each with a different number of refills, usually in the same handwriting. This makes me wonder ... how are you guys charting this stuff?

Is this why we get phonecalls asking what strength of a drug a patient is taking? And how are they taking it? And please give them six months worth of refills?

I'm still ingtrigued by the possibility of a Fred Thompson candidacy. Here's why.

• This cover story from Knoxville's Weekly Pulse
• This video response to Michael Moore
• His strong defense of federalism
• This profile from the Washington Monthly
• This video interview
• This Washington Post profile

Once he declares and his campaign really starts, I'll be able to judge him a little better.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from a friend:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I know the liberals are screaming over this ... and I understand why -- but please for the love of god explain to me why this is in ANY WAY good from your point of view. Yes yes, I know easier way to help in situations of disaster, but I can see this being overly abused, how should one branch of the gov't be able to completely over rule every other branch - it just seems ripe for abuse! My tin foil hat is buzzing.... please prove me wrong.

Glady.

A quick trip the Democratic Underground ("Because we can't function above ground") and Daily Kos ("We're nuts, so you don't have to be") revealed that liberals are certainly buzzing over the new National Continuity Policy. Apparently, they're afraid that Bush will use any "emergency" -- big or small -- to declare himself a dictator.

Let me give you a preview of the first thirty minutes of the Bush dictatorship:

10:00am: My fellow Americans, to ensure the successful functioning of the U.S. government through 2009 and beyond, I am pleased to announce that I will be continuing as President indefinitely.

10:05am: Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill of impeachment against President George Walker Bush, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Wherefore he is ignoring the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stated...

10:07am: The Bill of Impeachment passes, by a vote of 400-35.

10:12am: The Senate will now convene to hear the case of the People of the United States vs George Walker Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts...

10:20am: The Bill of Impeachment is sustained by a vote of 95-5...

10:30am: Mr. President, as Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it gives me great pleasure to arrest you for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it, crisis averted. Does anyone seriously believe that men and women of the United States Armed Forces would support a President who ignored the Constitution in such a blatant manner? Or that Congress would ignore a dramatic usurpation of their rights and powers? Even the Republicans in Congress would be falling over themselves to condemn such a move.

For more on why the Kos Kids and DU nuts shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, read on.

The Continuity of Operations Plan is designed to ensure that the American government can continue to operate in the event that the government is decapitated. We have had such a plan, in one form or another, since the end of World War II. Earlier this month, the Bush administration decided to revise the existing plan. Here's the relevant snippet from the end of the COOP:

Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

In other words, the plan that the Clinton administration established is going to be replaced by the Bush administration's plan. The Clinton plan supplanted the Bush '41 plan, which supplanted the Reagan plan. No big deal here.

Now, for the specifics.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President

This is a change. Formerly, the effort was coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Here's why one of the Kos Kids is worried:

So like I said, am I over reacting? Never said this was gospel. Some say yes, some so say, personally I am not a Constitutional Law lawyer, and wording in this directive just seemed oddly vague. And vague directives can lead to some pretty wild interpretations.

So can being off of your meds. Which seems to be the case here. Here's what the COOP says:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator ... will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), ... The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

So, the directive is vague because it ain't the actual plan. The actual plan is still to come. This is just the outline of the project scope and requirements. Also, it's not like the Clinton plan was a model of specificity. It was just as vague. And the finished plan was never actually released to the American public either. This month's directive is just business as normal.

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So basically, when the next 9-11 or Katrina hits, the National Essential Functions goes into effect. But what about economy? Say the other international shoe drops and they change the petro dollar to the petro euro, does that count as a catastrophic emergency? What if China calls in our debt, does that count?

No, you dope. We've had one of these things for years. It's never gone into effect for such silly reasons before, even when we had gas lines and soaring inflation.

d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

So, another Class-5 hurricane comes to town, and this time it's looking at Miami, and snarling. This directive will go into effect.

Again, nope. This is a directive to ensure that we have a working government when the existing government has been decapitated. Hurricanes attacking Miami ain't gonna cut it.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

The President will lead all three branches? Really? Sounds like an emperor to me. And if you don't think that this cleverly worded paragraph does not mean that, think about the latest antics of one Alberto Gonzales.

Come on, please. Coordinate means coordinate. Not rule. Somebody's gotta take the lead in coordinating and since the executive branch already has the day to day responsibility for managing the federal government, it only makes sense that they take the lead.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

That is just a little bit disturbing. To say the least.

Why? The government is most likely to be decapitated by a suitcase nuke, detonated in Washington D.C. Given that reality, it only makes sense that the APHS/CT be the National Continuity Coordinator.

As the Washington Post points out:

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order.

Not as the Democratic Underground thinks, taking out Congress. (Really guys, was the pharmacy out this week?)

I have to admit, I feel silly even responding to conspiracy theories this inane. But, you ask, I answer.

N.Z. Bear put the entire text of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 online. It is hyperlinked for easy access to specific sections and readers can leave comments about specific sections. This is a great way to read the bill and build citizen awareness of what Congress is trying to do.

Hugh Hewitt has been reading through the bill and offering his criticisms. Specifically, the bill apparently has a gaping loophole that would allow almost any existing illegal immigrant to gain a Z-visa without a full background check. Furthermore, the bill seems to assume that the Federal government has no chance of completing background checks on 12 million illegals and starts the blame game early. Finally, the bill would impose a huge hidden tax on businesses hiring immigrants.

So far, not so good.

However, John McCain says that the loophole really isn't a loophole.

I may or may not have further thoughts on this later. Mainly, I wanted to publish these resources for anyone that's more interested in them than I am.

Three months ago, I reported that Jim Doyle wanted to hike the hospital tax in order to give hospitals more money. Well, he still wants to. Only now we know that the amounts the hospitals will supposedly receive, is less than Diamond Jim hoped for:

UW Hospital had been projected to gain $23.3 million in Medicaid reimbursements over two years under the original proposal. Under the new calculations, it would receive about $11 million. Meriter, which had been projected to get almost $22 million, would receive about $14 million. The projected reimbursement for St. Mary's Hospital's increased by half a million dollars, to $4.8 million.

Oops. Of course, people not affiliated with the Doyle administration think that hospitals will actually lose money by being taxed, not gain it:

In March, the Wisconsin Hospital Association released an analysis showing hospitals would lose money in the next two years if the hospital tax is approved, not gain $283 million, as Doyle claimed. The group is still analyzing the new data, but remains skeptical.

Of course, it's not even a given that the hospitals will receive all of the money from the tax scheme:

"A large portion is diverted to other programs. ... It's difficult to say where the funds will ultimately be used," Quinn said.

Government efficiency, marching onward. Roll Wisconsin!

Welcome to Information Warfare 101. This is a topic that the American public desperately needs to know about. The war in Iraq is not just a war of bullets and bombs. It is a war of ideas and information. Right now, our enemy is better at fighting this war than we are. We must win this war through information and ideologies, not through strategic bombing campaigns or overwhelming force. While overwhelming force is effective, it is not sufficient to win the war by itself.

What is Information Warfare? According to Kim Taipale, "information warfare is the protection, monitoring, disruption, or manipulation of information and information flows to improve one's own decision-making process or to degrade that of the enemy." It is making the enemy see what you want him to see and hiding what you don't want him to see. Information Warfare is the art of making your enemy react in a way that you want him to react by feeding him information that you have manipulated in some way.

Our terrorist enemies are masters of this type of warfare. They know that they cannot defeat our forces in an open fight. They also know that we have proven vulnerable to information warfare in the past.

We lost our first major information battle during the Vietnam war. In January of 1968, the Communists of North Vietnam launched a surprise attack against American and South Vietnamese forces -- the Tet Offensive. Their main goal was to provide the impression that American forces were not winning (and could not win) a fight in Vietnam.

The actual attack was a disaster. The North Korean forces suffered 35,000 dead, 60,000 wounded, and 6,000 captured. The American and South Korean losses totaled around 3,900. The attack was not judged in military terms, however. It was judged in terms of perception. The American media and the American people perceived it as a devastating American loss, mostly due to the surprise of the attack and the wide-spread nature of the attack. The Tet Offensive marked the beginning of the end of American involvement in Vietnam.

The goal of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and other terrorist groups, is to duplicate the success of the Tet Offensive. They are willing to take large military losses if, in doing so, they can convince the American people that the terrorists are winning.

Judging by the media coverage of the Iraq war, we are losing the information war. That needs to change. We can win in Iraq, but only if the American people are willing and able to look past the misinformation, lies, and distortions of the terrorists.

I'm willing to spend my time pointing out exactly where and when we're being lied to. Are you willing you follow along with me?

Last week the Democrats in Congress decided how they'll spend your money. Surprisingly, they won't be letting you keep much of it.

Majority Democrats passed an important test Thursday with approval of a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for party priorities such as education and health care.

The budget blueprint sets a course to produce a small surplus in five years by assuming that many of President Bush's tax cuts would expire.

Ah, yes. They'll hit all of their spending priorities by taking more of your money. Makes perfect sense.

The House passed the measure by a 214-209 vote without a single Republican voting for it. The Senate quickly followed on a 52-40 vote; moderate Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined with Democrats.

But deficits under the Democratic plan would be higher over the next two years than the $150 billion to $200 billion the Congressional Budget Office predicts for the current year. A $41 billion surplus is projected for 2012.

They noted it projects a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 by assuming that more than $200 billion worth of tax cuts over 2011-12 "” on income, stock dividends and capital gains, among others "” expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Yep. That makes sense. Increase the deficit in the hopes that continually increasing tax revenues will cover the spending spree. Also, assume that the American people will let you hike their taxes by $200 billion.

The budget plan sets the stage for an $850 billion increase in the national debt "” to $9.8 trillion. Under a House rule endorsed at different times by both Democrats and Republicans, adoption of the budget resolution means a separate debt limit increase bill is automatically passed and sent to the Senate.

You know, Congress has the same sense of fiscal responsibility that the Moellering's do. Joy.

Edmund Andrews has a nice op-ed in the New York Times. He talks about the recent rise in gasoline prices and the claims that oil companies and station owners are gouging consumers. As usual, it turns out that your federal government is the culprit, not the savior.

The Energy Information Administration is predicting that crude oil prices will average about $66 a barrel this summer, versus $70 last summer. But it predicts that gasoline will average about $2.95 a gallon this summer, up from an average of $2.84 last summer.

INDUSTRY executives say the anomaly reflects a temporary drop-off in refinery activity, partly because of scheduled maintenance and partly because of unscheduled interruptions. On top of that come ethanol prices, which have soared, because refiners now blend a small percentage of ethanol into standard gasoline.

Why is the price of ethanol soaring? Why is a small amount of ethanol blended into each gallon of standard gasoline? Congress mandated it, of course! Be sure to thank them the next time you fill up.

The broader issue is that refinery capacity has not kept up with American demand for gasoline. Oil companies, caught with vast amounts of excess refining capacity in the early 1980s, systematically reduced capacity during the long lean years when energy prices and profit margins were the pity of Wall Street.

In theory, the allure of fat profits will attract heavy investment in more refinery capacity. And John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters last week that oil companies have indeed been investing heavily in recent years.

In theory, yes. But your Federal government is threatening those investments:

But Congress could face an entirely new quandary in its desire to expand the use of renewable fuels. President Bush has called for producing 35 billion gallons a year of alternative fuels "” from cellulosic ethanol to coal-based diesel "” by 2017. Congressional Democrats might be even more aggressive.

If that's the plan, will oil companies want to invest in more refineries? "You've got to ask whether the demand will be there," Mr. Felmy said.

It's time to tell Congress to quit mucking about with the nation's energy supply. And, if they do insist on mucking around with it, to quit blaming the oil companies for the results of Congress's decisions. Once again, we see that our Congress is about as dignified as a class of first graders. And has about the same sense of responsibility.

Christine and Mark Moellering have a debt problem.

Their credit card debt came to $22,228, including $380 in monthly finance charges. Interest varied from 12.1 percent to 32.24 percent. The Moellerings also have a mortgage of $93,000 and a home equity loan balance of $68,574, at 8 percent interest.

John Leland, of the New York Times, points the finger at changes in federal regulations:

Just a generation ago, financial profiles like the Moellerings' would have been unusual. But changes in federal regulations since the 1980s, along with consolidation in the banking industry and changed consumer attitudes toward borrowing and saving, have made credit more widespread, more heavily marketed and more confusing, with offers of more credit "” at low rates "” extending to even the least reliable risk. In 2006, the industry mailed out nearly 8 billion credit card offers, up from 3.5 billion in 2000.

Credit card debt, less than $8 billion in 1968 (in current dollars), now exceeds $880 billion, more than tripling since 1988, adjusting for inflation, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Penalty fees alone cost consumers $17.1 billion in 2006 "” up from $12.8 billion in 2003, adjusted for inflation, according to R. K. Hammer, a bank card advisory firm. In part because of the debt burden, the consumer savings rate fell below zero percent in 2005 and has stayed there.

Of course, there could be another explanation. According to the article, they built up their debt over several years: $6,000 in student expenses put on the credit card, $50,000 for a wedding that included rings, a reception, a honeymoon, a new bathroom. Just this past Christmas they bought an $800 42-inch television.

I think the Times wants me to feel sorry for this couple. I don't and I don't think I should. They've made a constant series of bad decisions. Ms. Moellering was "too busy" to apply for student loans, so she put her education on the credit card. They both wanted a nice wedding, so they spent $50,000 on one. Mr. Moellering was too busy to calculate his checking account balance, so he racked up $288 in bank fees. Both were too impatient, so they bought a TV on credit knowing that they already had more debt than they could manage. Their debt problem isn't the fault of federal regulators. Their debt problem is the result of buying things they want -- whether or not they can afford them.

There is a simple trick to understanding the vagaries of credit card contracts and interest rate schedules: make sure that you never put spending on a credit card unless you know that you can pay it off when the bill comes. If you follow that simple principle, you won't end up paying 32% interest. Let's take a look at how this principle could have helped the Moellering's.

Problem: You want to get married. Analysis: You have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: Have a small, simple ceremony with family and friends. Ask friends to help cater the reception and enjoy your honeymoon somewhere close to home.

Problem: you just got married and your current bathroom is in poor condition. Analysis: We already have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: endure the crummy bathroom. Decide to be thankful that you have an indoor bathroom and not an outhouse like your great-great grandparents.

Problem: you want a new television. Analysis: We already have $161,000 in housing loans and another $6,000 in credit card debt. Decision: Visit the local public library, check Craigslist, and find a used television that you can pay cash for.

Sorry Christine and Mark. I hate to be the person to break it to you. Living life as an adult requires that you take responsibility for your own decisions. Living life as an adult requires you to live within your means, not within your wants. Your debt is your responsibility. Please don't try to blame it on anyone else.

Geisinger Health System is trying an innovative approach to lowering healthcare costs: offering a warranty for certain surgeries.

Under the typical system, missing an antibiotic or giving poor instructions when a patient is released from the hospital results in a perverse reward: the chance to bill the patient again if more treatment is necessary. As a result, doctors and hospitals have little incentive to ensure they consistently provide the treatments that medical research has shown to produce the best results.

Taking a cue from the makers of television sets, washing machines and consumer products, Geisinger essentially guarantees its workmanship, charging a flat fee that includes 90 days of follow-up treatment.

Even if a patient suffers complications or has to come back to the hospital, Geisinger promises not to send the insurer another bill.

Since Geisinger began its experiment in February 2006, focusing on elective heart bypass surgery, it says patients have been less likely to return to intensive care, have spent fewer days in the hospital and are more likely to return directly to their own homes instead of a nursing home.

Unfortunately, the healthcare system isn't usually an innovator:

But hospitals have been slow to focus their attention on standardizing the way they deliver care, said Dr. Arnold Milstein, the medical director for the Pacific Business Group on Health, a California organization of large companies that provide medical benefits to their workers. Geisinger "is one of the few systems in the country that is just beginning to understand the lessons of global manufacturing," Dr. Milstein said.

Geisinger is improving care by identifying the best practices possible in cardiac surgery and then making sure that those practices are followed in every surgery. It's a simple idea, but one that doctors have been resistent to implement in the past.

Controlling costs are a large reason for the experiment:

Heart surgery and follow-up care, which runs about $30,000, are among the biggest-ticket medical offerings that Geisinger provides. But Geisinger executives say outside insurers and employers have indicated that Geisinger would need to include from 5 to 10 other procedures under its plan before they would have enough of their employees affected to make it worth their while to sign up.

Under the experiment, the hospital charges a flat fee for the surgery, plus half the amount it has calculated as the historical cost of related care for the next 90 days. So instead of billing for any additional hospital stays "” which typically run $12,000 to $15,000 "” Geisinger absorbs that extra cost.

This is the kind of healthcare reform that I get excited about. George Halvorson's idea is quite lame compared to this.

George C. Halvorson, CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals wants to force you to buy healthcare. He doesn't care if you want healthcare or if you think you need healthcare.

"Anything short of an absolute single-payer system requires an individual mandate. If you don't have that, then people will make decisions about coverage that will result in far less than universal coverage."

"Individual mandate": code words meaning that the government will force you buy healthcare and fine you if you don't. "Far less than universal coverage": people might otherwise choose not to purchase health insurance.

The comments were made while Mr. Halvorson was discussing European style healthcare. Several European countries allow private insurerers to sell healthcare, requiring only that every citizen purchase a health insurance plan. This is the model of healthcare "reform" that Mr. Halvorson favors. I can understand why he would be in favor of "individual mandates" -- he heads up an organization that makes quite a good profit selling health insurance. I'm sure Kaiser would earn even higher profits if more people bought health insurance. On the other hand, no one should be forced by their government to make a private company richer.

Individual mandates: just say no.

After home sales started falling last year, I saw a lot of doom and gloom commentary from "experts" afraid that we would enter a 10-year housing slump. Thanksfully, home sales in Madison (and Dane County) are on the rise again. Home prices still haven't completely rebounded, but I'm glad to see that they're starting to sell again -- at any price. As a new homeowner, don't want to see the market start stagnating!

The local residential real estate market is showing signs of recovery, a local real estate official says.

The 604 sales reported in April in Dane County were 11.4 percent below the 682 last April, according to statistics released Thursday by the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin.

But that is not as bad as the 20.1 percent decline for the first four months of this year compared to the same period of last year -- 1,802 to 2,006.

And RASCW Executive Director John Deininger said sales this year have improved more than they typically do as the weather warms -- by 8.0 percent from January to February, 47.0 percent from February to March, and 23.6 percent from March to April.

As I've been reading blogs this week, I've stumbled across various opinions of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. As you might expect from such a public figure, people have many opinions about him. Some people really liked him, some really hated him, and some had distinctly mixed feelings. Here's a sampling of what I found interesting:

Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell -- friends

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

Guest Post: A Remembrance of Falwell

I attended Liberty University from 1998-2000. When I started at the school, I wasn't what you would call a Falwell fan. I would here people talk about him in glowing terms and think, "Yeah right. There's no way that he's like that."

After meeting and speaking with Dr. Falwell, my opinion started change. While he made mistakes in what he would say, he would immediately seek to correct those mistakes.

Farewell Falwell

Students at Liberty University revered him. Evangelical pastors emulated him. Washington politicians courted him, and liberal elitists hated him. In all the years that Falwell fought pornography, we never opened our newspaper to read of his arrest at a peep show. For all his vehement condemnation of drug use and gay marriage, Falwell was never discovered with street-grade methamphetamines or getting sensual massages from paid male escorts. Sure he made a few verbal gaffes in this or that interview, but like the Bible says, we all stumble in many ways.

Rev. Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist in Chief

Indeed, his religious and political views were typically, as he himself described for much of his life, fundamentalist. As such he was out of step with most American Christians, including those who described themselves as evangelical. Although later in life Falwell dropped the "Baptist fundamentalism" label in favor of "evangelical," his religious and political views remained far more fundamentalist than anything. It's no surprise then that Falwell called Billy Graham, "the chief servant of Satan in America."

On Jerry Falwell

Falwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader.

Like reader Chuck, I think this is the key sentence from Joshua's lovely negative obituary for Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died earlier this week. If I may put a different spin on it, however, I think the piece underplays somewhat how important and influential Falwell really was.

Mixed Legacy

Many of you probably know that in the early years of his ministry Rev. Falwell was a staunch segregationist. In 1958 he said "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made ... The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

Falwell and King: Domesticating and Sanitizing, Grace and Truth, with Condolences

As an evangelical Christian, I firmly believe in the grace of God to conform saints to the image of his Son. This is the process of sanctification. So I believe that a Jerry Falwell, though once overtly racially-separatist, could see the error of his thinking by being confronted by the word of God, repent from that sin, and learn to embrace African Americans in love, as I believe he did. However, does the work of grace mean that we who hail heroes tone down, ignore, or attempt to clean up the early picture of Falwell or anyone else?

Senator Fred Thompson recognizes that what the country needs is bipartisanship, not partisan sniping:

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together "“ but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.

I'm demanding it. (It's worth 2 minutes of your time to read the whole post.)

I continue to be interested in a Fred Thompson candidacy. Hopefully he declares soon, so we can see what he's actually made of.