Columnist.
Next week I'm scheduled for a cervical spinal fusion that costs upward of $100,000, but I won't be paying for it. Like 50 million other Medicare recipients, I will receive the medical care I need more or less free of charge thanks to Medicare. It's something most seniors take for granted -- a benefit we believe we're entitled to because, after all, we paid Medicare taxes all our working lives. But as it happens, those taxes aren't nearly enough to pay for the benefits we receive from the system -- at least for most of us. Despite the fact that I still work and pay hefty Medicare taxes, I am likely to become one of those people who becomes a drain on the system if I live long enough (my mother died at 90, my grandmother at 95).
The pictures are horrific: schoolroom walls covered in blood, parents running with injured children against a backdrop of bombed-out rubble, women with outstretched arms imploring Heaven. But they do not tell the full story of what is happening in Gaza any more than the casualty or rocket tallies printed daily in The New York Times and elsewhere do. Midweek, the Times reported that 1,410 Palestinians have died and only 59 Israelis, while Israel had launched 3,577 rockets into Gaza compared to 2,753 fired by Hamas at Israel. But these figures are grotesquely dishonest, implying a moral equivalence that simply does not exist.
When it comes to an agreement with Iran about its nuclear program, no deal is better than a bad deal. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered the news to President Obama this week that a deal was unlikely by the July 20th deadline agreed to at the beginning of talks last September -- which no doubt disappointed his boss, who is desperate for some foreign policy success to point to. But unless Iran is willing to give up its program -- and dismantle the uranium-enriching centrifuges it currently operates and destroy its existing stockpile of heavily enriched uranium -- economic sanctions should not be lifted. Unfortunately, the U.S. negotiating position has been far more conciliatory to the Iranians. We've virtually conceded Iran's right to enrich uranium, with the caveat that we expect them to freeze their capabilities of producing weapons-grade nuclear material and will ensure their compliance through inspections. If they agree, we will lift the sanctions that have helped cripple the Iranian economy.
Some 50,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed our borders in recent months, and those capable of helping resolve the crisis won't even talk to each other much less come up with a decent plan. This week, President Obama asked Congress for supplemental appropriations to deal with processing the minors and to discourage more from coming, but House Republicans so far have balked at considering the request. "We are not giving the president a blank check," House Speaker John Boehner declared. Republicans want the administration to do more to stop the flow of kids into the U.S., which is reasonable. So why don't the two men sit down and work it out? That's their job. Instead, both sides seem more worried about their political bases than they do about solving the problem.
This week marks not only the 238th anniversary of the founding of our nation, but also the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The principles contained in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, took nearly 200 years to find their fulfillment in the Civil Rights Act. The declaration that "all men are created equal" was a radical one, more aspirational than real at a time when slavery was not only practiced but would soon be legitimated in our Constitution. It took a Civil War, with its 750,000 dead, and decades of legal and political struggle and more deaths for those words to be given full meaning. But on July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the hard-fought legislation that would turn an abstract principle into the law of the land.
House Speaker John Boehner has had enough of executive usurpation of power. He announced this week that he will ask the House of Representatives to file suit against President Obama for ignoring laws the president doesn't like and for using agency rule-making, executive orders, memoranda and even simple letters to accomplish that on which the president can't get Congress to act. When our framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they envisioned a separation of powers between the three branches of government that would prevent any one branch from becoming all-powerful. Congress enacts laws that govern the nation, with the Senate advising and consenting on presidential appointments and ratifying treaties, and the House initiating bills to raise revenues. The president faithfully executes the laws, appoints officials to serve in executive and judicial roles with the advice and consent of the Senate, negotiates treaties, and acts as commander in chief. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Legislators who've been dragging their feet on immigration reform hardly need another excuse for doing nothing, but the recent influx of young children across our borders is certainly making things more difficult. Anti-reformers claim the sudden increase in illegal border crossings by unaccompanied minors -- about 48,000 so far this fiscal year -- is proof that the border is far from secure. Pro-reformers point to the humanitarian crisis that has developed with thousands of children being held in holding pens not fit for hardened criminals much less kids. But while the two factions engage in finger-pointing, positions in both camps harden and nothing gets done.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary defeat this week is being widely touted as a warning to Republicans contemplating immigration reform. The popular narrative has it that because Cantor's opponent, David Brat, is a hard-line immigration opponent who accused Cantor of being "pro-amnesty," immigration was the deciding factor in the race. But the facts don't bear out this restrictionist fantasy. First, whatever else one can say about Cantor -- that he is one of the brightest members of the House, for example -- he is no friend to immigration reform. NumbersUSA, an opponent of both legal and illegal immigration, gave Cantor an overall B rating in its "report card" on his voting record from 2011-2014, including an A-plus on reducing "amnesty entitlements" and an A-minus on "reducing illegal jobs and presence." Cantor would have scored higher overall, but he voted for visas for high-tech and other needed workers, and the immigration restrictionists want no immigration, period.
California is home to the largest population of limited English-speaking students in the nation, mostly immigrants and children of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. If these children are to succeed in the United States, they must learn English -- the question is how best to accomplish that aim. In 1998, after decades of failing such students, Californians voted to replace so-called bilingual education, which in practice taught children primarily in their native language, with English immersion programs. By all measures, the shift away from native-language instruction toward English immersion was a success. Not only did kids learn English more quickly, but their reading scores improved, as well, doubling in the first four years after bilingual education was banned. So why are California legislators now trying to reverse course and lift the ban on bilingual education? The move seems primarily aimed at appeasing a powerful bilingual education lobby. If bilingual educators succeed, it will be at the expense not only of the children they claim to want to help, but also of the future of immigration reform.
In President Barack Obama's egocentric world, everything -- civil war in Syria, Russian power grabs in Ukraine, Chinese claims to Vietnamese and Japanese territory in the South China Sea, and peace in the Middle East -- revolves around him. Has there ever been a more self-absorbed commander in chief in our nation's history? Not that one could imagine listening to the president talk this week about his role -- and, by extension, the role of the United States of America -- in the world. The president took the occasion of the commencement address to West Point on Wednesday to define the Obama Doctrine, which occupies pretty much any position the president deems fit on any given foreign policy or defense issue at any given time, including reversing a position when he feels like it.
A plan to allow some young people to serve in the U.S. military even if their parents brought them to America illegally as young children may be the opening some Republicans need to support at least limited immigration reform. The so-called ENLIST Act would grant to undocumented young immigrants the right to join the U.S. military and be eligible for citizenship after four years. But the measure already suffered one defeat when its sponsor, Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., tried to add it as an amendment this week to a must-pass defense policy bill. Still, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., both have said they don't have a problem with the principle of allowing so-called "DREAMers" to serve in the military and earn an expedited path to citizenship.
Give the Obama administration credit for consistency if nothing else when it comes to targeting the for-profit education sector. In March, the Department of Education proposed new rules (whose public comment period ends May 27) that may put some for-profit schools out of business for no good reason. A federal judge struck down similar rules in 2012, but that didn't stop the department from trying again. The question is: Why? Not everyone benefits from being born to wealthy parents who can afford to pay for college. Increasingly, middle-income students must borrow if they want to further their education after high school. And the problems are even more severe for nontraditional students who are older, poorer and often the first in their family to receive post-secondary education. Those in the latter group seek opportunity in the for-profit education sector because it meets their needs better than traditional universities or colleges. But they may soon find this avenue blocked, as well.
Monica Lewinsky is back in the news, this time complaining of her treatment by the liberal media, feminists and the Clinton Machine. In a long essay in the latest edition of Vanity Fair, Lewinsky blames all three for making her unemployable. Sorry, I'm not buying her sob story. Nearly 20 years after her stroll down the walk of shame, she's a far less sympathetic character than she was originally. Lewinsky claims that her affair with President Bill Clinton was entirely consensual -- no sexual harassment here, she says. Nonetheless, she complains that the media frenzy that attended the public airing of what sexual antics took place in and around the Oval Office in the mid-1990s hurt her far more than it did him. Maybe.
Racism is ugly, no matter who is spewing it. But there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to public outrage on the subject. It was less than a week after LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racist comments to his girlfriend in a private conversation became public that he was banned for life from NBA games and venues, fined $2.5 million, and on the verge of being forced to sell his team. But when a Democratic congressman engages in racist, public name-calling of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the reaction is muted at best. First, let's be clear: What Sterling did was offensive and hurtful, and the man is clearly a repulsive character. But what was most shocking about the incident was how quickly the NBA moved to punish Sterling for uttering his prejudices in a private conversation, when the league earlier had ignored that Sterling engaged in actual illegal housing discrimination. In 2009, Sterling settled a suit with the Department of Justice, paying a nearly $3 million fine, the largest in history for federal housing discrimination.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor this week took the unusual step of reading her dissent in a case involving state-sponsored affirmative action in Michigan. In doing so, she showed herself not only petulant to be on the losing side in a 6-2 decision, but unable to divorce her legal reasoning from her own sense of racial grievance. It was an embarrassing but predictable performance. In 2009, I was one of a handful of witnesses who testified against Sotomayor's confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I did so with sadness, because there is much to admire in Sotomayor's personal history.
Dartmouth College has a problem. Protestors occupied the president's office at the Ivy League school a couple of weeks ago and demanded more "womyn or people of color" faculty, coverage of sex-change operations on the student health plan, and "gender-neutral bathrooms," among other things. Now Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanlon has responded with a call "to end the extreme behaviors that are in conflict with our mission." But Hanlon's aim seems focused almost exclusively on the campus fraternity system, and his solution -- a committee to look into "high-risk drinking, sexual assault and inclusivity" -- appears more a way to appease those who engaged in the sit-in than to confront genuine problems at the school. Let me be clear. Binge drinking is a huge issue on campuses across the country, and fraternity hazing can be cruel and dangerous. But fraternities are not, by and large, the cause of the breakdown of civil and responsible behavior at Dartmouth or other colleges.
Agree with him or not, you have to respect Jeb Bush's honesty. On two issues, immigration and a common core in education, Bush recently went on record stating positions at odds with some powerful activists in his own party. In a speech in Florida last week, he came out solidly for immigration reform that includes giving legal status to the 11 million illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S. now (provided they pay fines, taxes and haven't committed crimes while here) and for a common core of knowledge that children in all states should be expected to learn. This is heresy to some Republicans, but just plain common sense to others, including those of us who consider ourselves Reagan Republicans.
I like Megyn Kelly. The Fox News anchor is smart, lively and gorgeous. But she's managed to walk right into a controversy over race and ethnicity, and it's not the first time. These are treacherous waters for anyone in media -- but especially so for media personalities who are perceived as conservative. (Full disclosure: I am also a Fox News commentator.) The current brouhaha involves Kelly's decision on Wednesday during her eponymous show not to name the shooter in the deadly attack at Ft. Hood. Here's what she said: "Authorities are identifying the shooter. If you are interested, you can get his name on other shows, like the one that preceded this one, and online, but we have decided not to name these mass killers as a policy here on 'The Kelly File.'"
A controversial ruling by the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board this week gives college football players the right to form a union. At issue was whether scholarship players should be considered employees of the university, in this case Northwestern University. NLRB Regional Director Peter Ohr ruled that the players are athletes first and students second. That's probably a fair reading for most college football players in the country at both public and private colleges. But the solution isn't unionization. I'm actually quite sympathetic to the claims that schools take advantage of top athletes in sports like football and basketball. Sure, college players win full rides, with tuition and room and board paid for, along with perks, including tutoring and better food and accommodations at many schools. But athletic programs are a huge source of funding for the schools. Northwestern raised an estimated $30 million for its football program alone last year -- and the top earner, the Texas Longhorns, raised $139 million.
Conservatives traditionally have regarded minimum-wage laws with skepticism -- and for good reason. Attempts by government to interfere with market forces in setting wages rarely work out as intended. But a group of conservative pundits and activists recently joined President Obama and others on the left in calling for hefty increases for low-wage workers. Have they all gone mad? Not exactly -- though the motives and tactics of some of the new minimum-wage proponents may surprise their allies on the left. Some conservatives, including activist Phyllis Schlafly, actually have endorsed increasing the federal minimum wage. Ron Unz, a onetime GOP gubernatorial candidate and former publisher of The American Conservative, favors a state hike. He tried to put an initiative on the California ballot this fall that would raise the California minimum wage to $12 an hour but backed off this week when he failed to entice others to help fund the campaign. Still others, such as columnists Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, want federal intervention of a different sort, which they claim would raise pay for millions of low-wage workers.
