[COLUMN] Time to consider congressional term limits

Even before Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States, one of the very first bills the Democrats introduced in the new Congress was one to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms.

After all, when your messiah is elected you cannot have that annoying Constitution prevent him from staying in power.

To be fair, U.S. Rep. José E. Serrano has introduced the bill at the beginning of every Congress since Bill Clinton was president. In fact, many similar bills have been introduced in Congresses dating back to 1956, shortly after the amendment's ratification.

There are some strong arguments against term limits for presidents and that is part of the reason it has bipartisan appeal, though this most recent bill has yet to attract any co-sponsors and will likely die in committee.

Perhaps the strongest argument against presidential term limits is the loss of the people to decide at the ballot box whether the president should continue in power. In other words, the argument goes, it is undemocratic. Term limits, as U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once said, demonstrate "a fundamental lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the voters."

While a good argument on the face, it crumbles under real scrutiny.

[COLUMN] No more government 'solutions' for health care

Invariably, whenever I argue with some weak-minded liberal (I know, redundant) about health care and why it is a profoundly ignorant and potentially dangerous idea to let the government take over, i.e., socialized medicine, I am given some bleeding-heart sob story about the number of uninsured in the country.

Turns out, however, that argument is a straw man and it is time to put it to rest, thanks to Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan. On his Carpe Diem blog (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/), Perry quickly dispatched this liberal argument.

In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 45.6 million people were without health insurance. One argument against the figure is that many of those people are only temporarily without health insurance. While the figure remains fairly steady, the actual people without insurance changes often.

However, another argument, the one put forth by Perry, is that a large number of those people are voluntarily without health insurance.

For example, of that 45.6 million people, the Census Bureau said that 9.1 million, or 20 percent, were living in a household earning more than $75,000 per year. Certainly, the vast majority of those 9.1 million people could afford health insurance if they wanted it.

An additional 8.5 million, or 18.6 percent, were living in a household earning between $50,000 and $74,999 a year. Many of those people could also afford health insurance.

That means nearly 40 percent of those 45.6 million people are living in households that could afford health insurance.

In fact, only 13.5 million, or 29.7 percent, are living in households earning less than $25,000 per year.

The problem seems quite a bit less pervasive when you break those numbers down.

[COLUMN] Federal snake oil no cure for what ails U.S.

For some reason, most Americans are simply confused when it comes to government.

I suspect that most people, at some time in their lives, have railed against the government for one reason or another.

We have grown accustomed to government scandal, year after year. For example, the list of current or former federal representatives recently or currently under investigation by law enforcement or congressional ethics committees is long indeed.

That list includes (but is not limited to): Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.; Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill.; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif.; Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.; Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif.; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.; Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.; Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.; Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.; Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va.; Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa.; Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.; Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

I could go on and on.

Then there are the long list of Washington scandals: Watergate; Iran-Contra; Whitewater; travelgate, lawyergate; Monica Lewinsky; filegate; House banking scandal; Jack Abramoff; Keating five; etc.

Miscreants aside, there are other reasons to rail against the government. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a government agency knows firsthand the slowness and inefficiency of the government leviathan. Even the U.S. military is one huge, inefficient bureaucracy.

So I am always amused, or perhaps bemused, when I hear someone claim that government is the answer.

[COLUMN] Obama speech should have targeted Arabs, not Muslims

A live TV broadcast showing U.S. President Barack Obama delivering his speech in Cairo University, is reflected in the sun glasses of a man at a coffee shop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Thursday, June 4, 2009, as he watches the live TV broadcast. Obama called for a new beginning between the United States and Muslims, during his speech delivered at Cairo University in Egypt, which is broadcast live on the internet and TV stations. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

If President Barack Obama wants to go around the world showing disdain for the United States in front of foreign audiences, he should at least get his facts straight.

Obama spoke for nearly an hour Thursday in Egypt at Cairo University. He titled his speech "A New Beginning." Perhaps he should have titled it, "Another Obama Apology."

It is wholly inappropriate for the president of the United States to apologize to every country he visits for past U.S. behavior that was not necessarily wrong.

The problem is that Obama clearly does not understand the issue when it comes to the United States and the Middle East.

For example, Obama said, "We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars."

It probably came as a surprise to the estimated 6 million Muslims in the United States (which, contrary to what Obama said, does not make us even close to being "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world") to hear they have a tense relationship with their home country.