One of the top issues in the presidential campaign is
medical insurance, or rather, the lack of it.
The New York Times reported this week that, "About 25
million Americans did not have sufficient coverage last year to shield
them from financial hardship," and that is an increase of nine million
since 2003. Add to that number "the approximately 50 million uninsured
Americans," and that is 75 million Americans that face an economic
catastrophe should they get seriously sick, approximately 25 percent of
the United States population. If either candidate or even a minor party
candidate could persuade that block of voters to bullet vote on that
issue alone, that candidate could win or decide who would.
Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain adequately address
the issue. Obama permits those who - primarily young people - believe
they will never get sick and need no insurance and can avoid the
premiums to do so. That violates a basic premise of insurance, which is
that you cover the sick and the healthy to reduce the collective cost.
McCain requires no one to be covered, leaving it to the
individual to take or not to take the income tax exemption provided
under his proposal and buy their individual policies. The proposal
offered by Hillary Clinton is still the best and should be appropriated
by one of the
two candidates.
I believe that the United States now has a responsible
immigration policy. We allow about a million people a year to enter our
borders and become eligible for U.S. citizenship. However, there are
those -- and that includes both presidential candidates -- who believe
that illegal aliens should have a path to citizenship as well. I do
not.
I believe if more immigrants are desirable, and I think they
are, it should be done by increasing the legal numbers permitted to come
here. The supporters of illegal immigrants advocating amnesty and "a
path to citizenship" raise the false specter of arresting 12 to 20
million illegals, putting them on buses and boxcars, and shipping them
home. That, of course, is ridiculous and no one is advocating such a
Nazi-like tactic. What everyone knows is that if there are no jobs
available, huge numbers of illegals will contemplate going home on their
own and in fact that is now happening.
On May 1, 2008 The New York Times reported, "As a result of
the difficulties [getting a job and law enforcement efforts], among
immigrants who had been here less than five years, 49 percent said they
were thinking of returning home, while 41 percent said they planned to
remain in the United States. Overall, slightly under one-third of the
immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country. In 2001,
the last time a similar survey asked a comparable question, about 20
percent of Latino immigrants said they were thinking of going home."
The pressures should be brought on the employers. White collar
criminals need only a brief stay in jail to give up their avarice - a
30 day sentence for a first offense, with the doubling of the sentence
for each subsequent offense, along with a hefty fine, in my judgment,
would be adequate to stem the lawlessness.
I repeat a suggestion I made some time ago. The federal
government should offer free transportation back to the country of
origin and a $500 per person reward for those who appear at the American
embassy in the country of origin to collect it. Regrettably, none of
this will happen because there are so many institutions and public
officials that defend illegal immigration and believe in a policy of
open borders. It is a philosophy which would impose limitations on the
United States which are not imposed on other countries. Another example
is the constant attack by environmentalists on the United States and
President Bush for not joining the Kyoto Treaty which is up for renewal
in 2012.
No matter how many times it is pointed out that China is a
huge user of fossil fuels and a polluter which recently took second
place heretofore held by Japan following the United States, those
criticizing the U.S. excuse China and do not bracket the two demanding
both sign the Kyoto protocols simultaneously. How will those critics of
the U.S. react now that, according to The New York Times of June 14th,
"China has clearly overtaken the United States as the world's leading
emitter of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas." The Times
further reported that "in 2007, China's emissions were 14 percent higher
than those of the U.S." and China had "carbon emissions seven percent
higher by volume than the U.S. in 2006." Kyoto excluded from coverage
the developing nations of China and India.
In Great Britain, Prime Minister George Brown just won a
vote in Parliament on providing additional time to hold terrorist
suspects in jail without charging them from 28 days to 42 days, by the
skin of his teeth with the Conservative Party and a substantial number
of Labor backbenchers voting against the bill. According to The New
York Times, should the law be enacted, "for suspects to be held beyond
28 days, the government would have to win parliamentary backing for an
order, valid for 30 days, declaring 'a grave exceptional terrorist
threat.' Any suspect held beyond 28 days would have the right to appeal
to a judge," and "compensation, which some lawmakers said would be as
much as $6,000 a day."
Britain has been plagued with severe homegrown terrorism
from its local Muslim population. Congratulations to Prime Minister
Brown who is exhibiting the understanding of the dangers of Islamic
terrorism recognized by Tony Blair and not being deterred by those who
for philosophical or political tactics decline to. Regrettably, I
believe those with resolve to stand up to worldwide Islamic terrorism in
the United States are weakening.
The New York Times reported on June 12th that "a federal
appeals court ruled on Wednesday that immigration judges and the
appellate system established as a check on their decisions committed
'obvious errors' by denying asylum to three Guinean women who claimed
that they were victims of genital cutting back in Africa." One of the
lawyers for the women said, "Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for
women who seek our nation's protection to escape the brutal practice of
female genital mutilation and the other forms of gender persecution that
are associated with it."
The Times article continued, "The practice of genital
cutting, a tradition throughout sub-Saharan Africa, has long been
criticized by human rights groups and the United Nations." Of course,
but does that mean that the millions of women who live there are
eligible to enter the U.S. as refugees? The Times reported, "In
previous cases, the board has said that women subject to forced
sterilization are routinely granted asylum." This would cover millions
of women living in China under that country's one child only policy. I
believe that the United States should be compassionate, but irrational,
no.
