Divided States of America

Is it possible that the United States of America might devolve into the Divided States of America? Six months ago, Russian professor Igor Panarin (a former KGB analyst) predicted that America would disintegrate into various republics. At the time, few paid much attention.

Now Paul Starobin (author of the new book, After America) is suggesting that America might be stronger and more effective in the global economy if it divided into largely autonomous regional republics that reflect their unique economic and cultural character. He sets forth the possibility of a Republic of New England or a Pacific Northwest Republic of Cascadia. He makes the case for such a devolution in the pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Before you dismiss the idea, consider the number of secessionist groups in America. One proposes a federation of New England states and eastern Canadian provinces called Novacadia. The Texas Nationalist Movement claims over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization's goal of a Texas nation.

When Texas Governor Rick Perry was speaking at one of the tea-parties, he was interrupted by cries of "secede." At the time he did not disagree. Later with reporters he said: "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that." And a survey taken later showed a much higher percentage of Texans agree with the governor than you might imagine.

I am skeptical that America will devolve into autonomous republics, but I must acknowledge that there is more talk of succession in the country than in previous years. Much of it is born of anger, but some derives from a practical evaluation of how best to deal with a global society. One member of the Texas Nationalist Movement quotes from John Naisbitt's best seller, Global Paradox, that argues that the bigger the world economy, the more powerful its smallest players.

Will we become the Divided States of America? I don't think so, but many seem to believe it is in our future. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Entitlement Bankruptcy

One way to get readers' attention is to write about Social Security and Medicare going bankrupt. That's what Newsweek magazine found. A week after economist Robert Samuelson wrote on the subject, 57 percent of the letters to the editor were about his article.

He began: "When the trustees of Social Security and Medicare reported on the economic outlook for these programs, the news coverage was universally glum. The recession has made everything worse. Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Sooner, headlined The Wall Street Journal."

The numbers are indeed gloomy. Over the next 75 years, these programs will cost over $100 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57 trillion.

Samuelson predicts (as do I) that there will be lots of rhetoric about the problem but no meaningful action. More than a decade ago, President Clinton warned: "We must save Social Security for the 21st century." Five years ago, President Bush traveled the nation telling us the system "on its current path is headed toward bankruptcy." Even President Obama has said: "What we have done is kicked the can down the road." Each president talks about the problem, but he and the Congress continually kick the can down the road.

Until these programs are totally bankrupt, I fear that government officials will do little if anything to fix them. In fact, expanding government-paid health care might even make the problem worse. Samuelson believes that at the very least it will aggravate medical inflation.

There are some concrete steps we can take now to make a difference. Frankly, we should have done them decades ago, but at least we can implement them now and start addressing the inevitable. We should gradually increase the eligibility age and gradually reduce benefits for wealthier recipients. Restructuring the current Medicare system would also be warranted.

We can deal with the structural problems with these programs now or wait until they go bankrupt. I vote for dealing with them now. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Spiritual Warfare

Have you noticed the number of Christians preaching or writing on the subject of spiritual warfare? Recently someone pointed that out to me, and we began to list the many sermons and books on the subject.

At first, I thought that I was just noticing these messages on spiritual warfare because I recently published a book on the subject. But my friend began to list pastors (like David Jeremiah, Ray Pritchard, and Chip Ingram) preaching messages on spiritual warfare. The other day I had two authors (Karl Payne and Jerry Rankin) on my radio program to talk about their books on spiritual warfare. And we also noticed that there were many Sunday School classes and Wednesday services about the invisible war or spiritual warfare.

So many Christian leaders seem to be understanding that, as it says in Ephesians 6:12, that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness of this world, against spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.”

Perhaps it is because they see how spiritual warfare is affecting everyone in the Christian world. There is no place you can escape from this warfare. There are no “safe zones” or “secure bunkers” where you can hide.

Perhaps it is also because they see that so many Christians do not even know there is a spiritual war taking place around them. Some become spiritual casualties while others are mortally wounded in the spiritual conflict.

Of course, it is also important that Christians be on the offensive. Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 that: “though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

A spiritual war is taking place around us, and I am encouraged that so many Christian leaders are addressing this important topic. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Cost of the Newly Insured

What is it going to cost to give more Americans health insurance? Those who are running the numbers tell us it isn’t going to be cheap.

Let’s start with the claims being made by members of Congress. Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He says that he expects to raise $1 trillion for health care reform (over 10 years) by cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $400 billion and by raising taxes by $600 billion.

President Barack Obama and his administration give us a glimpse of how they would cut Medicare costs. First, they will cut $106 billion from the disproportionate share hospital program. The DSH is federal money that reimburses hospitals that treat a “disproportionate” number of uninsured.

Second, the president also wants to cut $110 billion by making “productivity adjustments” to Medicare providers. Essentially that will lower the amount the government pays to doctors and hospitals under the guise of forcing them to be more “efficient.” On my radio program, health expert Dr. Merrill Matthews said that would be like your employer coming to you and saying I am going to cut your salary in order to make you more efficient!

Also, let’s not forget the plan to seize an additional $600 billion from the American taxpayers. I think all of us would like to know who has the pay more in taxes at a time when the economy is already struggling.

But the biggest shock has come from the Congressional Budget Office that estimates that this $1 trillion will only result in a net gain of 16 million uninsured. Dr. Matthews did the math and says this works out to be $62,500 per newly insured American. As he says, “You thought health insurance was expensive before, wait until the president makes it affordable.”

Sixty-thousand dollars for every newly insured American? There has got to be a better way to provide insurance for the uninsured. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Abortion and Health Care Reform

Will health care reform force you to pay for abortion? That is a question Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is asking. He is not the only one who is asking what health care reform might mean to the average American.

Lately President Obama has been trying to reassure Americans that government involvement in health insurance will not radically alter our health care system. While in Green Bay, Wisconsin the president claimed that socialized medicine is not his goal.

He said: “Socialized medicine would mean that the government would basically run all of health care. They would hire the doctors, they would run the hospitals. They would just run the whole thing. Great Britain has a system of socialized medicine. Nobody is talking about doing that, all right?”

You have to wonder if the president is trying to make a distinction that really isn’t much of a difference. In single-payer health care, the government reimburses both public and private sector health care providers. While there may not be complete state control of health care, the government will have to have control of health care expenses. So while it may be true that the goal of Congress and this administration is not promoting socialized medicine, it is also true that government officials will have to make choices about what is and isn’t covered by the government option of insurance.

That brings us back to my opening question. What will the government fund and what will government refuse to fund? The argument could easily be made that since abortion is legal in this country, the government should fund any and all of a woman’s reproductive needs (contraception, abortion, maternity, etc.). The current battle over conscience protections for doctors and other health providers suggests that provisions for abortion may indeed become part of the government option for health care, if not initially certainly down the line.

Whether abortions are funded by the government plan will be one of many battles fought as Congress considers health care reform. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

TV and Political Values

Decades ago, social scientists documented that what we see on television affects our worldview. One study done at the Annenberg School of Communications found that heavy TV viewers tended to overestimate their likelihood of being involved in a violent crime compared to light TV viewers. The reason was simple: they saw lots of violence on television and unconsciously assumed that is how the world was.

They are now finding that heavy TV viewing affects political attitudes. That is the conclusion of a study done by the Culture and Media Institute. They have published a National Cultural Values Survey which provides a major overview of the cultural and moral values of Americans. It won’t surprise you to find out that most Americans believe that the media are harming the nation’s moral values.

One part that I found most interesting is the finding that the media are undermining America’s sense of personal responsibility. They found the more a person watches television the less likely he or she is to accept responsibility.

For example, they found that 64 percent of heavy TV viewers believe government should provide retirement benefits to Americans while only 43 percent of light viewers thought this. By the way, a heavy TV viewer is someone who watches four hours or more of television every day. They also found that 63 percent of heavy TV viewers prefer government health care to private health care. This is compared to only 43 percent of light viewers.

Television viewing also had an impact on volunteering time and giving money. They found that 56 percent of heavy TV viewers did not volunteer time to worthy causes last year, compared to 22 percent of light TV viewers. They also found that 24 percent of heavy TV viewers made no charitable contributions last year, compared to 11 percent of light TV viewers.

Obviously these are only correlations and do not prove causation. But you do have to wonder. On the surface, it appears that watching lots of TV affects both attitudes and behavior. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Bible Study Permit

Do you need to obtain a permit to hold a Bible study in your home? For awhile it looked like you might have to get a permit to do so in San Diego.

When I heard about this incident, I got Dean Broyles (president of The Western Center for Law & Policy) on my radio program. As the attorney involved in the case, he verified everything that I heard about how Pastor and Mrs. David Jones were treated by San Diego County.

A county worker came to their house and asked Mrs. Jones, “Do you have a regular meeting in your home?” She said, “Yes.” Then she was asked, “Do you say Amen?” Again, she said “Yes.” And she was also asked, “Do you say praise the Lord?” Once again she said, “Yes.”

Apparently that was enough for the county worker who informed her that they must stop holding “religious assemblies” in their home unless they first obtain a Major Use Permit from San Diego County. These permits can cost thousand of dollars. The County worker then made it clear that they could be fined increasing amounts from $100 to $200 to $500 to $1000, “and then it will get ugly.”

When Dean Broyles shared this story on the “Point of View” radio program, two things happened. First, the phone lines lit up. Second, my co-host for the day (Joseph Farah) decided to give the story international exposure on his Internet site, WorldNetDaily. Soon Dean Broyles was doing more interviews than he could handle (from as far away as New Zealand).

When radio listeners and WorldNetDaily readers began to complain to San Diego County, the officials decided not to require the Jones family to obtain a permit to have a weekly Bible study in their home. The San Diego County Counsel and its Chief Administrative Officer issued an apology and rescinded the original citation.

While we can rejoice at the victory, you do have to wonder if the retraction was based more on public pressure rather than on a desire to acknowledge the religious right of a pastor and a handful of people to meet for Bible study. Fortunately, a radio program and an Internet site made the difference, this time. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Government Motors

Lately more and more people have been referring to GM as “Government Motors.” This is not surprising in light of the significant government involvement in the management and future of GM. President Obama has made various announcements and decisions, and the Supreme Court has been forced to rule on various aspects of the bailout and bankruptcy.

One columnist noticed that the president used the first-person singular pronoun “I” 34 times in one of his announcements about GM and never used the word “law.” It is that last point that has some members of Congress upset. After all, how can the president point to the law when the law does not permit the federal government to do what it is doing?

Let’s go back to the original TARP legislation. There is nothing in the Troubled Asset Relief Program that authorizes the bailout (much less the nationalization of an automaker). The Bush administration used TARP money to make loans to GM and Chrysler even after Congress failed to pass the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. Think about this for a moment. Congress was given the opportunity to specifically allocate funds to GM and Chrysler, and it rejected the proposal. But the president went ahead and took money from TARP and gave it to the automakers.

At a recent press conference, a number of Republican senators stated that when they voted for TARP, they did not envision that the money would be used to buy up car companies. They feel like the previous Treasury Secretary (Hank Paulson) received a blank check. DeMint says: “No one knew how the money was to be spent. We gave the Treasury department a $100 billion line of credit forever.” Senator Jeff Sessions believes actions by the Bush administration and especially the current actions by the Obama administration are “illegal” and “extra-constitutional.”

These senators (as well as other members of Congress) declare that no Senate or House vote authorized the Treasury’s action to effectively force taxpayers to purchase 60 percent ownership in GM. They are asking, “Where is the constitutional authority for this?”

That’s a good question. Time will tell whether these questions gain momentum or are merely shoved aside. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

No Stimulus

When the stimulus bill was being debated in Congress, there were many critics saying that it would not stimulate the economy. Even some who voted for the bill admitted that it would probably not have much effect, but believed it should be passed anyway in order to promote certain sectors of the economy.

Now that the economic numbers are in, it is becoming obvious that the stimulus bill did not stimulate the economy. While it is true that household personal income rose, it did not stimulate the economy through consumer spending. The money that did make it to consumers went into savings or paying down debts. It is also true that much of the stimulus money has not made it into the economy yet. But if the current trends continue, it is reasonable to assume that the stimulus bill will not stimulate the economy.

There was reason to doubt the stimulus bill would be effective. Last year’s tax rebate put checks into people’s hands, but it did not stimulate the economy. For that matter, the various stimulus packages passed by the Japanese government in the 1990s didn’t work either.

It is also worth remembering that the President and Congress moved quickly to pass the stimulus package and warned that unless it was passed, unemployment would pass 9 percent. But they also promised that unemployment would peak at less than 8 percent. At the moment, unemployment is at 9.4 percent.

The stimulus package also increased America’s debt. The deficit has quadrupled, but I think it may go higher. It is likely that this budget cycle will end with a deficit much higher than the $1.8 trillion currently being predicted.

As I point out in my new book, Making the Most of Your Money in Tough Times, these mounting federal deficits require the U.S. to borrow more money and undermine our currency and financial stability. And if we cannot borrow the money, then we will have to print it (thus fueling inflation).

All of this is the result of hasty, ill-advised action just a few months ago. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Coexist

No doubt you have seen the bumper sticker that calls for all of us to “CO-EXIST.” It’s a nice sentiment and certainly a worthwhile admonition that we should all have respect for one another and learn to get along.

But if you look closely at the bumper sticker, you will see that the primary message is to the religious communities. On the “CO-EXIST” bumper sticker, the letters are formed primarily by various religions. For example, the “C” is the Muslim crescent. The “O” is the peace sign. The “X” is the Star of David. The “I” has a yin/yang symbol over the letter to symbolize eastern religions. Finally, the “T” is the Christian cross. So really the bumper sticker is a call for all the various religions and worldviews to get along.

There’s just one problem. The first of those letters (the Muslim crescent) represents a religious group that generally has a problem with co-existence. Of course some Muslims have made their peace with the modern world, which includes technology, equality, pluralism, tolerance, and civility. But a very large portion of the Muslim world is directly opposed to such ideas. In fact, in many places around the world, Muslims are literally at war against coexistence.

The other religions and philosophies in the bumper sticker have no problem with co-existence. Of course there are some exceptions, but generally these religious groups have been willing to coexist in democratic societies. In fact, if you were to take the Muslim crescent off the bumper sticker, you wouldn’t even need the bumper sticker.

This is what the late Samuel Huntington was trying to get across in his book, The Clash of Civilizations. There is an inevitable conflict between Western universalism and Muslim militancy. We can promote pluralism and civility to the Western world, but we are preaching to the wrong crowd. It is the Muslim world that has a problem with these concepts.

While it is true you probably won’t see many “CO-EXIST” bumper stickers on cars in a church parking lot, you will be even less likely to see them on cars parked by a Muslim mosque. Coexistence is a great idea, but let’s be realistic enough to understand which religion is most likely to resist it. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Abortion and Social Security

Has abortion had an impact on Social Security? That is a question someone asked me recently in an e-mail. Apparently he believed that abortion did impact Social Security and made that point to a friend. His friend thought he was crazy for making such a statement.

I was surprised that his statement was considered controversial given that there are articles from think tanks with titles like “How Abortion Has Weakened Social Security.” Yet somehow lots of Americans believe that we can remove 50 million potential citizens from the population without any impact.

Consider the difference between two generations. The builder generation (those born before the end of World War II) in general had three or more children during their child-rearing days. Thus, the ratio between workers and Social Security recipients was high. By contrast, the boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964) had fewer children. Some of that was due to lifestyle choice (using contraception to have fewer pregnancies), and some of that was due to abortion. Much of the decline in live births (and thus future taxpaying workers) is due to abortion.

Of course there are other ways in which abortion has impacted society. A research paper by the National Right to Life Committee documents this. First, fewer babies mean fewer consumers as well as less demand for goods and services. Second, abortion slows labor force growth. The Social Security Administration predicted a slowing of the growth rate in the U.S. economy. While it did not attribute it to legalized abortion, you can look at the graphs and come to your own conclusion about what those graphs might look like if there were more children and young adults in the world. Finally, abortion undermines technological innovation. The research paper reminds us that abortion denies us the talents and creativity of those unique human beings who were not born but instead were aborted.

Many people may deny that abortion has had any impact on Social Security, but the facts say otherwise. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

North Korea

North Korea has been in the news once again, in part because it detonated an underground bomb that was equivalent in strength to the bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima. It is worth noting that the only two nuclear detonations in the 21st century have been done by North Korea.

North Korea also declared that it is no longer bound by the 1953 truce that ended the Korean War. It’s a pattern North Korea has followed for years: negotiate, pretend to cooperate, and then return to its old ways. The latest words from North Korea are nothing new. The country routinely threatens war against South Korea and renounced the armistice back in 2006. Much of this is bluster, but that doesn’t mean that President Obama can ignore North Korea.

While it is certainly possible that North Korea might someday launch a nuclear-armed missile at a neighboring country, the greater threat is nuclear proliferation. It is likely to market it nuclear technology or material to other nations or terrorist groups. Currently North Korea rakes in $1.5 billion a year from the sale of arms. It is already suspected of transferring nuclear material to such countries as Libya and Syria.

What should the U.S. do? First, we should demand China and Russia agree to stronger punitive measures in the UN Security Council. Frankly, it is in their best interests. China and Russia should be worried about the possibility of North Korea unraveling. The two countries depend on North Korea serving as a buffer state between them and South Korea. The collapse of North Korea would certainly mean millions of North Korean refuges would be streaming across the border into China.

Second, the U.S. should continue to deploy a missile defense system. This is no time to cut missile defense, yet President Obama slashed $1.4 billion in funding. Currently we have 25 interceptors in Alaska and three in California. But the president wants to cap deployment at 30. Congress should restore funding missile defense.

Diplomacy, partnership with China and Russia, and missile defense are the best options for now. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Cap and Trade Bill

In a recent commentary, I cited a poll that found that only one-quarter of likely voters correctly understand the term “cap and trade.” Obviously, most Americans need to understand what the term means since it is likely to cost them thousands of dollars each year.

Now that the bill has been moving through the legislative process, Americans need to know a whole lot more. The bill by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) deserves more scrutiny than it is getting. Apparently Representative Waxman wrote most of the bill in secret and then skipped the usually subcommittee process. Later on he added nearly 300 pages of additional legislation just before the first committee meeting on the bill.

Everyone (both opponents and proponents) admit that it will increase energy costs. How much has been a subject of intense debate. I am noticing that many think tanks and members of Congress believe it would increase energy costs by $3,000 per household. One research study estimated what the costs from the bill would be by 2035. It estimates that the bill would push gasoline prices 74 percent higher and electricity costs 90 percent higher than they otherwise would be.

Increasing costs would be one impact of the bill. Decreasing jobs would be another. Rapidly developing countries like China and India would not be under these regulations. Jobs and businesses would migrate to those countries as they enjoyed expanding economies without such crippling regulations.
Americans might be for the bill if they were convinced that it would have any appreciable impact on climate change. It won’t. A recent study found that if greenhouse gases are reduced 83 percent by the year 2050 as mandated in the bill, it would only lower global temperatures by nine hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit.

Those are just a few of the facts that every American should know. There are certainly others that should be discussed and debated. The problem is that most Americans do not understand what cap and trade would do. They better learn soon before they their energy bills increase. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Frank Ricci

Since I used to live in New Haven, Connecticut, I have been following a case from there that made its way to the Supreme Court. Now more people are paying attention to the case because President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee sided with the city against Frank Ricci.

Let me tell you about Frank Ricci. He is a firefighter in New Haven, Connecticut. He suffered from dyslexia, which hampered his academic achievements in high school. He worked hard and studied at a local community college in order to be a New Haven firefighter.

When the opportunity for promotion was posted, he decided to do all he could to achieve it. He quit his second job so he could spend as much as 13 hours a day studying for the promotional exam. Because of his dyslexia, he spent money not only on books but on a tutor who could read them to him. After all this hard work and study, he took the test and finished sixth on the lieutenant’s exam.

If this sound like “the all-American success story,” it was. Just one problem. The city denied promotions to him and the others who qualified. The reason for the denial was simple: not enough minorities qualified. Ricci and the other 19 firefighters sued the city for setting aside their test scores. They studied and worked hard. Yet they were denied their justly-deserved promotions because other racial groups either did not apply or did not qualify.

Over the next few weeks we will hear lots said and written about the role of empathy in a judge’s decision. Some will argue that a judge must be impartial. Others will argue that a judge must also have empathy. Frankly, I think this is a case you can choose to decide with either your head or your heart. Either way, I think you would come to the same conclusion.

Frank Ricci and the other firefighters worked hard, studied hard, and believed in the American dream yet were denied that dream because of the city of New Haven. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Changing Future

Trying to predict the future is a difficult task as George Friedman makes clear in his book, The Next 100 Years. His brief summary of the 20th century reminds us how unpredictable the future can be. He says, “Imagine that you were alive in the summer of 1900, living in London, then the capital of the world.” The future seemed fixed “peaceful, prosperous Europe would rule the world.”

By 1920, this assumption would seem like a distant memory. “Europe had been torn apart by an agonizing war. The continent was in tatters. The Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, and Ottoman empires were gone and millions had died in a war that lasted for years.” Although there was lots of uncertainty, one thing was certain “the peace treaty that had been imposed on Germany guaranteed that it would not soon reemerge.”

Twenty years later in 1940, Germany had not only reemerged but conquered France and dominated Europe. The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany, and it looked like Germany would dominate Europe and most of the world.

By 1960, Europe was very different. Germany had been crushed and Europe was split down the middle by the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States had emerged as a superpower as it attempted to face down both the communism in the Soviet Union and in China.

Twenty years later, the world was different again. “The United States has been defeated in a seven-year war—not by the Soviet Union, but by communist North Vietnam.” It was not only expelled from Vietnam but from Iran (and its oil fields seemed to fall into the hands of the Soviet Union). “To contain the Soviet Union, the United States had formed an alliance with Maoist China.”

By 2000, the Soviet Union had completely collapsed. China was communist in name but had become capitalist in practice. NATO had advanced into Eastern Europe and even into the former Soviet Union. Add to that the September 11, 2001 changed the world again.

All of this is a reminder that the future is always changing. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Health Care: Old vs. Young

It is likely that the current health care debate will pit old versus young. Recently we caught a glimpse of that possible conflict on a John Stossel ABC special. He raised the question why Americans should pay for health care through Medicare for people who are financially well off.

Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger worried about young people who have to pick up the tab for these wealthy Medicare recipients. She asked: “What kind of legacy are we leaving for them? We’re really stealing from them.” One of the students stated: “This program, Medicare, is essentially ripping my generation off.”

A researcher at the American Enterprise Institute estimated that the government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children. Remember that statistic, because I believe it will surface again in this health care debate. Hillary Clinton made a similar point 15 years ago when she put forth her health care reform.

The elderly argue that they paid into Social Security and Medicare. Now it is time for them to receive back what they put into the system. But the reality is that the average Medicare beneficiary collects two to three times more money than he paid into the system. Remember that number because I believe it also will surface again in this health care debate.

Part of the problem with Medicare is the ratio between workers and recipients. When Medicare began in 1965, there were six workers for every one Medicare recipient. Now the ratio is four to one and will decrease even more as baby boomers retire.

Another problem is the Medicare is an unfunded entitlement. Regina Herzlinger says: “There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay.” That is the price of thirty Iraq wars.

This is why I believe we may be headed to a conflict between old and young. We cannot sustain the current system, and I believe the debate about health care will intensify the conflict. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Israel and Iran

What will be America’s response if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Apparently the answer is, nothing. Caroline Glick (columnist for the Jerusalem Post) reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta sharply criticized Israel for its government warning against an attack on Iran. Dick Morris is a recent column called it “The Death of Israel.”

Caroline Glick reports that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable the fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. As she puts it, this “administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations.” They acknowledge that Iran will use future talks to simply “run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon.” Apparently many in the administration believe that “if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.”

President Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks is all carrot and no stick. There is no military threat, only an economic threat. And even that threat is an empty threat since Russia and China will not let the United Nations act to deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

Dick Morris believes that this means “Israel’s life is in danger.” He believes that if Iran gets the bomb, “it will use it to kill six million Jews.” Retaliation will not make any difference. It doesn’t deter a suicide bomber, and it is unlikely to deter Iran or its leaders from attempting to eliminate Israel. Iran may not actually launch a nuclear weapon, but may prefer to pass it to other terrorists in order to deny responsibility.

I trust you are as concerned about this administration’s fatalistic assumption that there is nothing we can do to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The options for the U.S. government are not good, but an Israel destroyed by a nuclear bomb are too horrible to contemplate. We must ask this administration to do more to protect Israel. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Health Care Myths: Part One

At a time when there is an ongoing debate about health care, it is essential that we have the right facts. One book that is helpful in this debate is Sally Pipe’s, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care. It shatters much of the conventional wisdom about health care and health insurance in this country.

One of the myths she takes on is that there are 46 million Americans who have no health insurance and therefore have no health care. I don’t want to quibble, but I might label this one (or at least the first part of this one) as a statistic that is true but misleading.

Are there 46 million Americans who are counted by the U.S. Census Bureau as uninsured? Yes. Are there more facts to consider in this statistic? Yes there are. For example, 14 million of these uninsured are eligible for existing government programs but have not signed up. Another 17 million of them are earning over $50,000 a year but do not buy insurance because they feel it is too expensive.

I might also mention that two-thirds of these uninsured are young people between 18 and 31 who consider themselves “invincible.” I have experience with that. My son was convinced that he didn’t need medical insurance. I bought him medical insurance anyway. I kept paying on the policy when he was working at part-time jobs and only stopped when I was sure he was receiving medical insurance from his employer.

There is one other fact that needs to be on the table. Since 64 percent of Americans get their insurance through their employer and insurance is not portable, many of the people who are counted as uninsured are merely between jobs. They are counted as uninsured even if that is a short period of time.

This leaves about 8 million uninsured that need some assistance. This is no small number, but it is much less than the 46 million figure constantly used. Medical personnel and policy experts have positive suggestions about what to do to help these 8 million. The point is this: we don’t need major reform of health care to meet that need. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.