Democrats Would Shun Bentsen Nowadays

Jonathan Gurwitz of the San Antonio Express-News has written an excellent editorial pointing out that the late, great Texas Senator, Lloyd Bentsen, would likely be unwelcome in today's Democratic Party. Bentsen, who was partisan enough to earn the 1988 vice-presidential bid, was nonetheless an independent thinker who was unafraid to embrace traditionally conservative ideas (particularly on the economy) if he thought it was the right thing for his constituents and for the nation.

Such a Centrist temperament would make Bentsen an apostate in the current Democratic Party—a Joe Lieberman in cowboy boots.

Gurwitz’s argument is not a new one to anyone on this forum. But it’s an accurate argument and one worth remembering.

Bentsen was, after all, the last Texas Democrat to be elected to the Senate. And it isn’t that Texans have become more conservative in the past 20 years (the majority of my fellow Texans have always been libertarian-leaning, god-fearing conservatives), it’s that the national Democratic Party has become more liberal and less welcoming to even the mildest of conservative positions.

If the Democrats want to ever win back places like Texas, the solution is not to cast out the ideological and temperamental descendents of Lloyd Bentsen. The solution is to embrace such moderates and allow the party to once again represent a broad range of ideas. Unfortunately, that is simply not the way the party seems headed.

The Centrist Movement Expands

This is all-over the Centrist blogosphere, but in case you missed it, you should take a moment to check out Unity08. It's a group of seasoned politicians and young Centrists determined to elect a unity ticket in 2008. They plan to hold a convention and nominate candidates for President and VP--with one candidate being a Republican and the other being a Democrat.

The website is slick, the concept media-friendly and the cause is worthwhile. I wouldn't be surprised to see Unity08 grow into a group focused on more than just the 2008 presidential election. Is this the first viable Centrist organization capable of affecting real change?

Let's hope it is the first. The first of many.

Great Travel Blogging

Richard Lawrence Cohen has returned from his trip to Greece. If you weren't keeping up with his posts from abroad, take a moment and visit his site. There's just nothing like truly great travel writing.

"We're shocked. This is not the outcome we expected."

So said Ken Lay after his conviction on fraud and conspiracy charges relating to the collapse of Enron. Shocked? Really?

My theory is that he really doesn’t believe he did anything wrong because he never intended anyone to get hurt.

If someone breaks into my house and takes everything I own, they know they are robbing me blind. But when a CEO and other top executives choose personal greed over employee and investor welfare, they don’t intend to hurt anyone. So does that make Lay’s crimes less severe than those of a burglar?

Hell no.

Whether or not Lay intended harm makes no difference. His actions were like those of a drunk driver who kills a family. The drunk had no intention of hurting anyone but we still throw the book at him because his negligence was of the most deplorable sort. Like the drunk who chooses personal pleasure and convenience over concern for all others on the road, Ken Lay chose personal success and wealth over concern for the employees and investors of Enron.

The result of his actions were tragic. The punishment is warranted.

But I do want to add: to all those who claimed Ken Lay would never suffer justice because of his personal connections to the Bush family, please note that the system is not so malleable. Ken Lay didn’t walk. He’ll serve time just like every other criminal who gets caught.

And I, for one, am glad to live in a country where even the most powerful are not above the law. That might “shock” Ken Lay, but it should please the rest of us.

Back in My Day, We Didn't Have Any Fancy Invisibility Cloaks

Think you will never say those words? think again.

Who needs magic when you got this kind of science? Of course, I'll believe it when I see it.

Congress is Right to Challenge the FBI

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are coming together to protests the FBI’s raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office and to demand that documents seized be returned immediately. Leaders of both parties agree that the raid violated the separation of powers.

On their side is history. The FBI raid was the first-ever raid by an executive branch agency on legislative branch property. And I can see why congressional leaders are upset. Permitting executive branch law enforcement agencies to raid congressional offices gives the executive branch significant power of intimidation against the legislature.

Now, I know we seem to have entered an age where people either have ebullient trust or reflexively irate distrust in the executive branch and its agencies. The once-defining American trait of considered and wise suspicion is all but extinguished. So, in attempt to ward off complaints that I somehow believe the FBI is evil or that the executive branch is the enemy, let me clearly state that I 1) support robust prosecution of all criminals, no matter their official position. And 2) I don’t think there’s a chance in the world that the FBI is going to suddenly become some kind of intimidator force for the executive branch to use against the legislature.

But our system exists not for the situations and personalities of today but for the long-term health of the nation. Separation of powers exists to thwart the attempts of malicious men and women who may one day come to power. Our Founders were smart enough to know that we can never assure angelic nature in all our leaders. But we can insure that, should a devious soul come to power, he or she will be broadly and completely checked and balanced.

So while I have no problem with the FBI investigating the crooked William Jefferson, I have to agree with members of Congress that it is wholly inappropriate for the FBI to raid a Congressional office. The inability for the FBI to seize legislative property may be a burden to law enforcement but that burden is far outweighed by the benefit steadfast separation of powers provides our nation.

Rest in Peace, Lloyd Bentsen

The great Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen has passed away at the age of 85. He was senator for all of my childhood and defined what it once meant to be a Texas Democrat.

His kind are few now. He will be missed.

Finding Ways to End Corruption

Looks like U.S. Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) is the latest congressman caught in a serious corruption scandal. Jefferson is accused of taking money in exchange for using his position to help move forward an African telecommunications deal. Over $90,000 in cash was found hidden in the congressman’s freezer in his Washington, DC home. That money is believed to be part of the $100,000 Jefferson received last year during what he thought was a bribery-transaction but was really part of an FBI sting operation.

This case once again sheds light on the seeping corruption infecting Congress. While I am under no illusions that this contemporary corruption is any worse than the dishonesty found in earlier Congresses, I do think we’re at a point where an earnest, clean-government movement is especially necessary.

I doubt many other congressmen or women are shoving cash into their freezers, but I have no doubt that softer, more sophisticated quid-pro-quo influence peddling is going on in both parties. It’s casual, it’s dang-near institutionalized and it needs to end.

One step in the right direction would be to require much greater transparency. All representatives and senators should be required to disclose on the Internet all fundraising sources and every contact with lobbyists. With modern technology, concerned citizens (bloggers or otherwise) could monitor disclosures and look for patterns of corruption. If a pattern is clear enough, the story would almost certainly move from the self-appointed watch-dogs into the mainstream media. Then the voters, armed with much greater information about their representatives, could elect to remove or keep their corrupt member of Congress.

It’s nowhere near a flawless system but it’s exceedingly democratic and gives the people greater knowledge as to how their elected officials are conducting business. Open government is key to a healthy nation. And creating systems to achieve real transparency should be an ever-increasing priority.

Se Habla Ingles?

Should English be our national language? Yesterday, the Senate voted yes. Of course, they also voted that English is our nation’s “common and unifying language,” a different phrasing meant to be less restrictive than simply calling English our “national language.”

As usual with the Senate, rhetoric trumps practicality as both statements could now become law without either having any clearly defined intent. But let’s look at this issue anyway as it’s likely to stick around and generate a good deal of controversy.

The issue here is not whether our national language is English (it already is and will remain so) but whether we need to do something to keep Spanish from also becoming a national language. Already, throughout much of the Southwest, bilingualism is common. Just about every product on the shelves at my local grocery store has labels printed in both English and Spanish. Store signage is often in both languages. And there are many billboards printed in nothing but Spanish.

A Spanish-speaking immigrant could quite easily move to San Antonio, never learn English and live pretty well. They’d still run into more than a few problems, but there simply isn’t a significant incentive for immigrants to learn English down here.

But before we react too quickly, we must remember that first-generation immigrants refusing to learn English is not a new phenomenon. My mother-in-law tells stories of her Irish grandmother who spoke nothing but Gaelic—this worked for the old lady because her English-speaking children took care of her.

Much of the same happens today. I have yet to meet a child of Mexican immigrants who could not speak fluent English. And as long as the second-generation Americans speak English, I fail to see a major issue here.

The key, I think, is not to make sure every immigrant learns English but that every child of every immigrant grows up fluent in our language.

Sometimes I feel as if the entire issue of immigration (legal and illegal) is being approached with no sense of history. Do people really think that the nation’s Chinatowns and Little Italys and Irish districts and such were always cute little places to eat a good meal or have a cold beer? Most of those neighborhoods and regions are the vestiges of immigrant groups who refused to assimilate.

But in every case, the immigrant children, the natural-born citizens, pulled away, learned fluent English and melted into America.

The current wave of immigrants might be unprecedented in their numbers but I fully believe they are subject to the same forces of assimilation that have always been at work in this nation. It’s not a frictionless process. But as long as English is the language of our schools, our business, our entertainment and our politics, the children of Spanish-speakers will become English speakers.

Passing any laws, except perhaps pertaining to public schools, seems pointless.

I Just Can't Drive .... 80??

Everything’s bigger in Texas. Now everything may be faster too as the state considers raising the speed limit to 80 miles per hour on two Interstates in West Texas.

The reason for the change is the fact that, although a 70 mph limit is currently in place, everyone already does near 80 on the two West Texas Interstates. Heck, in my experience, 80 is the standard cruising speed on most Texas highways. Sure, we’re all breaking the law but the highway patrol doesn’t seem to care—5 to 10 miles over the limit is a kind-of grace zone and we all know it.

So, I have to agree with Judge Becky Dean Walker, the top official in Hudspeth County, who says, “If the speed limit is raised to 80, everybody is going to be doing 85 or 90. That's just human nature."

Yep. Keep the speed limits where they are and keep enforcement the way it is and don’t waste time and money passing a law and changing out all the signs.

The Mystery of Sports and Grief

I’ve never understood exactly why professional sports is appealing. What buried (or not so buried) tribal urge is ignited by watching people, who represent your hometown, play a game? Why is that fun? How on earth is it possible that we actually feel emotions (anger, joy, sorrow) over what happens in a game involving people we’ve never met?

Perhaps if I could actually rationalize all of that, I could make better sense of my own feelings towards the playoff match between the San Antonio Spurs and the Dallas Mavericks. Anyone who has read me for awhile knows that, when it comes to sports, I have only two true loves: The Dallas Cowboys and the San Antonio Spurs.

So why am I so conflicted about the Spurs ongoing collapse against the Mavericks? Why do I, forgive me San Antonio, almost want the Spurs to lose?

I suppose it could be that, having grown up in Dallas, I can never really remove my sympathies from that city’s teams. Or it could be that my 91-year-old grandmother is a rapid Mavericks fan and it does my heart good to know she’s witnessing what may be her team’s greatest moment.

But those are merely cushions—soft thoughts that should make the impending Spurs loss less brutal to bear. Such small comforts alone could not make me Benedict Arnold my team. Something else is at play here, something less obvious.

I think this deep dark semi-hope for a Spurs loss is a misplaced attempt to protect myself. If the Spurs are down 3-1 to the Mavericks, they’ll never be able to win the title. And if they’re not going to win the title, I’d rather them not break my heart by making it to the title game only to be defeated.

So I place my hope in the Mavericks, not because I love them, but because I don’t. I merely like them. Any defeat they suffer later in the playoffs will just disappoint me, rather than crush me.

You see, after the first loss of a series you go into denial: “that was just a fluke.” After the second, it’s anger: “how could they play so badly! And the refs! The refs stink!” Now that the third loss has come down—I suppose I am bargaining. I’ll tie my wagon to the Mavericks and then everything will be all right.

The stages of grief shouldn’t really apply to a sports loss. But they do. And thus is the mystery of fandom.

Happy Mother's Day

Happy Mother's Day to my wife, mother and grandmother ... and to all the other mothers out there. Without you--well, I don't even want to consider.

Why We Must Draw Lines

As expected, the amateur spindoctors of the right (aka rightwing partisan bloggers) are pretending like the news that the NSA is collecting our phone records is no big deal. The always well-written yet routinely vapid Power Line even entitled their post NSA Accused of Protecting Americans from Terrorists. As far as Power Line is concerned, those who are complaining are just whining liberals who hate America.

Well I’m not a liberal and I love this nation and I am disturbed that the NSA is collecting data about my calling habits. And you know why? Because we are a nation of lines drawn to ensure the few who run our government can never overpower the many who make up our nation. The entire Constitution was designed to dilute power and ensure that the people have ultimate control. That model breaks down when we allow government agencies to watch us without any oversight or any congressionally-provided authority.

Look, it’s not that I’m all bent out of shape over this specific program. I really don’t think my freedom is significantly or even marginally jeopardized just because somewhere a government agency has a record of my calling patterns.

That’s not the point. The point is: if the NSA needs no congressional authority to create this call-monitoring program, what else can they do? If we don’t draw lines now, what’s to stop the NSA or any other government agency from going further down this path—monitoring our credit card purchases let’s say. Or tracking our movements?

Some say if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. That’s pure ignorance. There is always reason to fear consolidated power. And the more information our government has on us, the more power they wield over us.

The question is: how much monitoring do we want to endure in our quest for national security? This is not a question for the NSA or the Executive Branch to decide alone. This is a question for us ALL to decide. And don’t tell me that if we reveal our tactics, the terrorists gain an advantage. As far as I’m concerned, the NSA and other agencies can do whatever specific actions are necessary to track down and eliminate terrorists. My concern is with these big-net programs that have the potential of catching a significant number of innocent citizens without ever snagging a terrorist.

We simply must live by the lessons of our Founders and avoid putting undue trust in the good will of our government. We must not abdicate important decisions to the few who are in power. That’s our responsibility as citizens. To argue otherwise is simply missing the point.

Bush Has Few Places to Turn

President Bush’s poll numbers are at a record low. And most polls show that he’s even losing support from his conservative base (an effect of the immigration debate and soaring deficit). The question for Bush is, where can he turn for support? Nowhere, says Michael Reynolds in a great post about how the Rovian strategy of attacking not just the left but the center as well has left most moderates unwilling and, in fact, unable to lend any support to Bush.

But Mr. Bush and his echo chambers in Congress the media and the blogosphere have made it clear they don't want support from any but the Kool-Aid drinkers. The only degree of support for Mr. Bush that is acceptable to his hardcore base is 100%. Support the war in Afghanistan and oppose provisions of the Patriot Act and you are a terrorist sympathizer. Support the war in Iraq and oppose the botching of that effort and you're a traitor. It's either 100%, or nothing with these people. Support the idea of surveilling Al Qaeda communications that involve American citizens, but demand that the law be changed to conform, you're nothing but a useful idiot for Al Qaeda.

While Reynolds reaches for the shrillest examples of name-calling, he’s absolutely right that the Republican powers-that-be have made their party an uncomfortable place for everyone but the fully indoctrinated. It’s this kind of purity test that has made sure the Republican doors stay firmly closed to a guy like me.

You’d think the Democrats would take advantage of this but, oh yeah, they’ve closed their doors to the impure as well. Millions of moderates/centrists wandering the street, their votes at the ready but their presence unwelcome. This is what Karl Rove and his Democratic imitators have wrought. It's a horrible method. And it won't last.

How Far Should We Let the NSA Go?

USA TODAY has reported that the NSA’s domestic spying program is a lot larger than originally suspected. Turns out, since 2001, the NSA has been working with most major telephone service providers to log every domestic call made. One anonymous source says the agency’s goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders.

Apparently, the NSA is using this vast database to look for patterns that will reveal terrorist activities. There is no word as to whether, by monitoring the phone usage of millions of American citizens, any terrorist plots have been thwarted.

But this is what it’s come to—our government is tracking our calls. They aren’t listening in, but they know whom we call, when we called and how long we spoke. These aren’t just records of suspected terrorist. These are records of a great many of us.

I do not want to sound shrill or alarmist so I will point out that there is no evidence that any of this information has been used improperly. However, it does raise the question of exactly how far we think our government should go in monitoring us in the name of security. Does it stop at our phone calls? Or should our credit card purchases be monitored? How about our Internet usage? Our travel? What organizations we belong to? Certainly all that could be used to uncover patterns consistent with terrorist activity.

Technically, the phone call monitoring and all other kinds of monitoring could be done in perfectly good faith. If you aren’t a terrorist, you’d have nothing to fear. But I don’t have a limitless supply of optimism when it comes to the good faith of our government. I don’t instinctively mistrust the government but neither do I blindly assume that our government is somehow immune from corruption and unscrupulous leaders.

At some point we have to draw the line and say to our government “you can’t do that.” Not because they’re currently abusing their power but because they are opening too many doors that can too easily lead to abuse of power in the future.

I don’t want my day-to-day activities to be monitored—any of them. Not even for my own safety. A monitored society cannot be a free society. We need to draw lines. And we need to draw them now.

Opportunity. Not Pessimism.

Can the Democrats win back the middle class by shedding their economic pessimism and embracing real plans to create more opportunity? Perhaps they can.

I discuss, over at Donklephant.

Legalizing On-Line Gambling

A new study has shown that Americans who participate in on-line gambling can afford to do so. Most are college-educated and only 12% made less than $35,000 a year.

So, if on-line gambling is not a major societal problem, should we legalize it?

Personally, I don’t see why we should keep it illegal. First of all, whether it’s legal or not has no bearing on whether people have easy access or not. Anyone can gamble on line, whether it’s betting on sports or playing poker. And there is almost no chance of prosecution.

Secondly, this is an easily taxable industry. Right now, the money earned on gambling websites is processed off shore. With our out-of-control deficit, why turn away such a solid source of revenue? I would hope even supply-side Republicans would see the wisdom in taxing this particular industry.

And, finally, legalizing on-line gambling allows for regulation. Right now, these websites have little or no reason to avoid cheating. And while legalization wouldn’t shut down the shady off-shore operations, I bet that most on-line gamblers would choose to switch to websites regulated by a state or national gaming commission.

The fact is, gambling, like drinking, is not inherently immoral. Doing it to excess and ruining your life and your family’s—that’s immoral. But the vast majority of poker players and horse betters and the like are perfectly able to enjoy gambling without losing a significant or even moderate amount of money. Just because a few people are addicts doesn’t make it necessary to keep the activity away from the rest of the populace.

Besides, as the study shows, on-line gamblers are not problem gamblers. And problem gamblers hardly need the Internet to fuel their addiction—local bookies and the growing number of legalized casinos are more than enough of an outlet. By keeping on-line gambling illegal, we’re just denying ourselves a source of tax revenue and letting an industry stay unregulated that really needs some oversight.

At the very least, Congress should look into the issue.

To Unite the Middle and Give Power to Their Voice

That was what we at the National Centrist Conference decided our mission is. Short and to the point. The effort, however, will likely be long and complicated. Nevertheless, it was wonderful to see people from all over the country show up in New York City to discuss centrism and how to pull our politics back towards the middle.

Annie Gottlieb (aka Amba) has a wrap up of the events as does Michael Reynolds of Mighty Middle. It was a true pleasure to meet both these amazing writers and all the other attendees. We laid some serious groundwork and came to some important decisions, all of which will be rolled out through the Centrist Coalition as we move forward.

Speaking of the Centrist Coalition, I have been elected the organization’s new executive director, effective July 4th. I won the position in a hard-fought battle against “no challenger.” In fact, the only person not to endorse me was, well, me. But I ended up agreeing to take the position—I only hope I can deliver because something needs to be done.

This nation absolutely must move back toward the center—and I’m not just talking about finding compromises. I’m talking about reviving a spirit of civility and open debate that avoids petty divisiveness and pandering while promoting competent solutions and consensus building. I’m talking about fighting against the dishonest spin and blind adherence to partisan ideology that dominate our politics and replacing them with a heightened level of integrity and a deeper commitment to independent thinking. I’m talking about creating an environment where leaders within the two parties no longer have to run to their wings for support but can instead find robust support in a newly revitalized center.

Those of us in the middle need to realize that our silent acquiescence has disenfranchised us. That we need to stand up. That we in fact have the power to stand up and make a difference because we have numbers on our side. We can demand more choices than the false divide of left or right. And it isn’t even necessary for us in the middle to all agree on specific policies or specific politicians. What matters is that we agree American politics has become too polarized, too shrill and too incompetently beholden to partisanship—and it must be changed.

There is still time to correct the course of this nation. But that time is not infinite. That’s why we all showed up in New York this past weekend. Hopefully, next time, a great deal more will join us.

Yeah, I Still Heart NY

In 1997, when I graduated college, I did not know what I was going to do with my life. So I moved to New York City. I had visions of living in rapturously beautiful poverty before becoming a fantastically wealthy novelist. What I ended up doing was spending two years shoveling slush in the publishing world before finally leaving the city.

This past weekend, I was back in the Big Apple—I’ve returned many times but this was the first time I’d ever traveled and stayed alone in the city. So there was time to walk the streets, time to lose my thoughts down the towered avenues and time to stand on the corners with the understandable yet still disquieting déjà vu that comes when you return to a place you once lived.

Friday night I spend with a friend and she asked me “do you miss New York.” I could only reply: that’s like asking me if I miss being 22. Sure, you can miss what cannot be had again, but doing so is defeating.

I know my New York is gone, faded away and irretrievable. It’s not even been a decade since my departure, but that’s enough time for this city to become something new. Even had there been no 9/11, the city would have moved on without me. It does that—constant metamorphosis. New buildings, new restaurants, new stores, new patterns to the subway, new people.

Always new people. All around I saw young people, 21, 22, 23, well-dressed and earnestly determined. I was part of that just 8 years ago. Part of the roving fleet of confident young people come to New York because, hell, that’s where you go if you have big ambitions but little direction. That’s where you go when you’re tired of school yet unfinished with freedom.

And I’m glad I moved there. I’m glad I lived two impoverished, frustrating, intimidating yet ultimately inspiring and transforming years in New York City. Being in the city again really made me realize how glad I am to have once been a New Yorker. How much that city sculpted me. How much New York still means to me. Those were good times…even when they weren’t.

Just felt like sharing…

New York Bound

I will be away the next couple of days as I travel up to the Big Apple to attend a national Centrist conference. Should be an interesting two days of politics and passion as we lay the groundwork for what will hopefully be a national movement. A number of centrist bloggers will be there as well as the leaders of the Centrist Coalition and moderate politicos from both major parties.

I will give a full report once I return.

"You came here to be a martyr and die in a big bang of glory... instead you will die with a whimper."

So said U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema after sentencing Al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without the chance of release.

Yes. Let him rot in misery. And let him one day pass, forgotten and defeated. I only hope he lives long enough to see the ultimate failure of his ideology.

Why the British are Healthier

A recent study has shown that the British are much healthier than we Americans. Across the board and across socio-economic lines, the Brits suffer from fewer diseases and live longer—despite smoking as much as we do, drinking more than we do and paying half of what we pay per-person for healthcare.

Even their fat people are healthier, so it’s not just our weight problem. And it’s not our larger numbers of racial minorities who generally have worse health—the study only used white people.

The English are simply healthier. And this bears repeating: they pay half of what we pay per-person for healthcare.

We have better doctors. We have better technology. But we pay more for worse health.

The recent study could not isolate any specific cause for our lower level of health but I have a layman’s theory: it’s about access. Our much more expensive system is much harder to access. If you don’t have health insurance, you’re probably not going to see the doctor until there is an emergency. And emergencies, in turn, add a lot more cost to the system.

The British, on the other hand, have free access to primary care. Health issues get caught sooner and the British people are healthier for it. Too simple? Probably. But it makes sense. Better access to healthcare=better health.

We can, of course, keep trying to improve our healthcare system by adding new layers of duct tape (and red tape). Or we can step back and recognize that the system we have built is not merely broken—it will never work. Never. What we need is free or at least incredibly affordable primary care for all citizens. That doesn’t mean we need to socialize medicine, but we need to subsidize primary care.

Until we make going to the doctor an affordable choice, too many Americans will simply wait until a health problem becomes a crisis.

I’m not recommending a specific method of providing subsidies—that is a post for another day. And I’m not talking about how we reform the critical care areas of the system. I’m just advocating making primary care an easily affordable option for all those who want it. I’m willing to bet we’d save trillions on healthcare if we caught more health problems earlier. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Why the British are Healthier

A recent study has shown that the British are much healthier than we Americans. Across the board and across socio-economic lines, the Brits suffer from fewer diseases and live longer—despite smoking as much as we do, drinking more than we do and paying half of what we pay per-person for healthcare.

Even their fat people are healthier, so it’s not just our weight problem. And it’s not our larger numbers of racial minorities who generally have worse health—the study only used white people.

The English are simply healthier. And this bears repeating: they pay half of what we pay per-person for healthcare.

We have better doctors. We have better technology. But we pay more for worse health.

The recent study could not isolate any specific cause for our lower level of health but I have a layman’s theory: it’s about access. Our much more expensive system is much harder to access. If you don’t have health insurance, you’re probably not going to see the doctor until there is an emergency. And emergencies, in turn, add a lot more cost to the system.

The British, on the other hand, have free access to primary care. Health issues get caught sooner and the British people are healthier for it. Too simple? Probably. But it makes sense. Better access to healthcare=better health.

We can, of course, keep trying to improve our healthcare system by adding new layers of duct tape (and red tape). Or we can step back and recognize that the system we have built is not merely broken—it will never work. Never. What we need is free or at least incredibly affordable primary care for all citizens. That doesn’t mean we need to socialize medicine, but we need to subsidize primary care.

Until we make going to the doctor an affordable choice, too many Americans will simply wait until a health problem becomes a crisis.

I’m not recommending a specific method of providing subsidies—that is a post for another day. And I’m not talking about how we reform the critical care areas of the system. I’m just advocating making primary care an easily affordable option for all those who want it. I’m willing to bet we’d save trillions on healthcare if we caught more health problems earlier. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Boycott is a Step Too Far

Today, millions of immigrants are skipping work, boycotting stores and taking to the streets to demonstrate their importance to our economy and demand fuller rights.

Good idea? Not in my mind. I generally take issue with such tactics. Only in the gravest of circumstances do I think it is proper to disrupt businesses and cities. And I do not think there is anywhere near a grave circumstance bearing down on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. In fact, the President of the United States himself is quite supportive of immigrants and it’s unlikely he would sign any bill that dramatically hurts the illegal immigrants working in this country.

Today’s actions are an overreaction, an unnecessary display that could be interpreted as an ungrateful response to our nation’s years of tolerance. For those of us who seek a tempered, humane solution to the problem of illegal immigration, it is disheartening to watch such counter-productive demonstrations. Marches are more than acceptable. Boycotts and work stoppages? That crosses the line.