Dakota Beacon

“School days, school days

                        Dear old Golden Rule days,

         Readin’ and ‘riting and ‘rithmetic

                        Taught to the tune of the hick’ry stick.”

Those were the days. Will Cobb and Gus Edwards wrote this refrain in 1907 about a man and woman looking back sentimentally on their lifelong friendship from early school days.

It’s been a long time since the Golden Rule (religious precept) presided; since reading, writing and arithmetic (traditional) dominated; and since spanking (corporal punishment) ruled.

Another year and another cluster of kids skip off to the halls of academia. Many parents are all too happy to relinquish their kids to the professionals for twelve years -- with a lot of sports thrown in for their viewing pleasure.

When most people speak of “education” they do not mean the classical cultivation of the mind, teaching the student how to learn via the trivium. Education for education’s sake seldom enters the conversation.

Education typically means something quite different. As a minimum, “education” in government schools means job training. Kids spend twelve formative years preparing for the work force. Simultaneously, they are socialized in the progressive pedagogy as “suggested” (leveraged by dollars) by the US Department of Education.

Long ago the US, via the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), adopted the Soviet style poly-technical pattern of education for American kids.

As early as 1949 UNESCO, strongly influenced by the failed Soviet Union, promulgated a global proposal for the revision of textbooks, especially history, and an initiative for “lifelong learning.” Those who supported the UNESCO changes regarded their effort as “forecasting” and “ planning.” Those for whom the changes were intended (especially the United States) regarded the effort as a “conspiracy.”

Twentieth century American education records a long, involved story. It segues through the creation of the US Department of Education by President Jimmy Carter to reward the National Education Association for their support in his presidential campaign. The story continues through the past decade with the School-to-Work and Goals 2000 initiatives.

No one would disagree that children should be taught something. Question is what should they be taught. That depends upon the answers to even more basic questions that government schools refuse to ask. Are we immortal? Are we God’s creation? Does God even exist? Without answering these questions affirmatively the sweep of American history, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution cannot be properly understood.

But, by what authority does the federal government involve itself in top-down education in the first place? On this point the US Constitution is silent. The Founding Fathers took for granted that education would be left to the discretion of parents and the several states, not to the discretion of a central government planned and funded with billions of tax dollars.

The intellectual climate in America today may be assessed by academia’s focus on sexuality and simplistic sexual fads -- gay marriage, sex “education,” gender studies and do-your-own-thing promiscuity. At this rate, there is plenty of room for recovering academicians.

Again, what should be taught? Contemporary education could incorporate the latest shake-and-bake theories of education laced with politically correct themes of ethnicity, gender, self-esteem, revisionist history, adulterated literature and dumbed down science.

Or, should education embrace classical themes on which Americans built a vibrant beacon to the world including mathematics, natural and physical sciences, logic, classical literature and poetry, history, philosophy, economics and music.

It’s not a stretch to imagine that a government education monopoly that assumes kids’ minds belong to the state reeks of a totalitarian aroma. If true, this idea does not merit respect. Philosophy, theology, logic, music and art may not translate to “jobs” contributing to the Gross Domestic Product, but they do provide a firm foundation for a life well lived.

In the short span between 1607 through the early 1900s, America’s education produced multiple generations that built the greatest engine of democracy and finest economic dynamo the world has ever seen. Today, the progressive program of government pedagogy, the so-called linear path to enlightenment, serves more to confound than to clarify.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

When kids return to school and harvest begins, can autumn be far behind? Shorter days and cooler nights signal summer’s end.

            It’s not too soon to think of autumn and the grand introduction to the Holidays that follow. No frost yet, but it’s only a matter of time.

            When the frost is on the punkin’ and the fodder’s in the shock,

                        And you hear the kynouck and gobble of the struttin’ turkey-cock,

            And the clackin’ of the guineys, and the cluckin’ of the hens,

                        And the rooster’s hallylooyer as he tiptoes on the fence;

            Oh, it’s then’s the times a feller is a-feelin’ at his best,

                        With the risin’ sun to greet him from a night of peaceful rest,

            As he leaves the house bareheaded, and goes out to feed the stock,

                        When the frost is on the punkin’ and the fodder’s in the shock.

            What better way to conclude a summer reading program than browsing through the poems of James Whitcomb Riley. Seldom has a writer captured the sense of nature and changing seasons more plainly than one of America’s most popular poets. Riley’s sentimental style and countrified dialect recall a simpler bygone era.

            Born in Greenfield, Indiana, on October 7, 1849, James learned at an early age his dislike of school discipline. Yet, he loved books, music and poetry.

            An Indiana Hoosier at heart, James had an unquenchable sense of humor. Although the term “Hoosier” is of uncertain origin, many explanations exist. James’s rendition went like this. Early settlers in Indiana were vicious fighters. Frequently, during a brawl, one combatant might bite off the ear of another. This occurred so frequently that, upon walking into a barroom, a stranger might see an ear on the floor and ask, “Whose ear?”

            James left school at sixteen and worked in his father’s law office for a time. When he wasn’t working he wrote verse -- which his father did not encourage. James never imagined his verse would amount to anything.

            In his early years, Riley explored various avocations as actor, composer and playwright. He eventually landed a job as associate editor with the Anderson Democrat. During this period his poetry appeared in a number of Indiana newspapers.

            One of Riley’s classic poems became immensely popular. Millions of people adored the poem “Little Orphant Annie.” It became so popular that, together with another of his poems, “The Raggedy Man,” inspired John Gruelle, cartoonist for the Indianapolis Star, to write stories for his little daughter. The attraction in these stories became the character named Raggedy Ann. This children’s character evolved into a cartoon strip, books, and eventually, a $20 million line of dolls.

            Little Orphant Annie’s come to our house to stay,

                        An’ wash the cups an’ saucers up, an’ brush the crumbs away,

            An’ shoo the chickens off the porch, an’ dust the hearth and sweep,

                        An’ make the fire, an’ bake the bread, an’ earn her board an’ keep;

            An’ all us other children, when the supper things is done,

                        We set around the kitchen fire an’ has the mostest fun

            A-list’nin to the witch-tales ‘at Annie tells about,

                        An’ the Gobble-uns ‘at gits you ef you don’t watch out!

            “Little Orphant Annie” masterfully captures the sentiment of autumn. The poem conjures up thoughts of cooler nights, specters of Halloween, a slice of time.

            Riley’s down-to-earth poetry, written for common folk, earned him the reputation as the most popular American poet ever. At his passing, 35,000 people attended the memorial service to bid him farewell.

            James Whitcomb Riley: October 7, 1849 - July 22, 1916. Will we ever produce another like him?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

It will never happen to me. But it did. Identity theft is real, ongoing and knows no bounds.

A thief, or thieves, stole my name, social security number and birth date.

Here is a timeline of my discovery. On June 8 I received a telephone call “Hello. This is not a solicitation. This is the fraud department from Bank of America calling about the checking account you requested June 7.”

Really? I didn’t open a checking account with any bank.

Observing preliminaries, the caller immediately terminated the new account process then explained that I may have been a victim of identity theft. “May” is putting it lightly.

Before the call ended the B of A Fraud Department rep assisted me in contacting and establishing a 90-day free fraud alert with all three major credit bureaus. Consequently, any business contacting any of the credit bureaus seeking a credit rating with my information would be alerted to the fact of my stolen identity. They could halt any fraud attempt. The bureaus would then alert me to the perpetrated fraud. This would apply to any requests for new accounts, credit cards or changes to my personal information.

On July 17 I received a call from AT&T Credit Verification Department inquiring about a wireless account I was seeking to open.

Really? I wasn’t seeking to open a wireless account with anyone. In fact, AT&T doesn’t even serve North Dakota at this time. “Of course,” said the AT&T rep, “this account was for an address in Pompano Beach, Florida.” I told the rep I have no friends, relatives or property in Pompano Beach, Florida. Never been there. I was informed that an account had been opened for that Florida address on May 26 and there was a $194 bill for June. The rep helped me close that account and deny the opening of the second account. I was then transferred to the AT&T Fraud Department where I eventually sent my ID theft affidavit.

I immediately contacted the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office and filed a report of the two AT&T incidents. I then opened a paid credit check monitoring service with Equifax, Experian and Transunion, the three credit bureaus, through my insurance company.

Later, while scanning my Experian credit report, I noted the Pompano Beach address associated with my name. Ah, ha! I’ll ask Experian to expunge that address to clean up my credit report.

When I contacted Experian, I was told they could not remove the address because an active CitiBank credit card account had been opened with that Florida address.

What! I should have been alerted. No, sir. The card was applied for on June 8, the same day Bank of America contacted me. The fraud alert had not yet gone into effect on that date.

I contacted the police on July 27 and filed a report before contacting CitiBank. When I did contact CitiBank I was told the account would be investigated and closed. Moreover, a $6500 check had been requested against the $7000 line of credit using my information and the Florida address.

Four fraud attempts were made in 8 weeks using my stolen identity. Two were successful, and were squelched. My next step is to freeze my credit reports with the three credit bureaus. Businesses seeking credit checks for new accounts using my information will be denied access until I lift the freeze. That should stop further attempts. But my information is still “out there.”

As with 56% of victims, I have no knowledge how my information was stolen. I’m confident it was not carelessness. I can narrow it down, but will probably never know precisely. Fortunately, I found out within weeks. Some people don’t find out for years.

Here are ways anyone can minimize the risk of identity theft:

Open an account with the three credit bureaus. An attorney, insurance agent, police or Attorney General’s office may offer advice.

Order your credit report. Insure it’s accurate and includes only activities you’ve authorized.

Use passwords on credit card, bank and phone accounts. Passwords using number sequences, birth dates, mother’s maiden name, last 4 digits of your SSN or phone number are no longer secure.

Secure personal information in your home, especially if you host roommates or strangers.

In the workplace, determine who has access to your personal information and verify security.

Don’t give personal information over the phone or internet.

Give your SSN only when necessary. Don’t carry your SSN card or Medicare card.

Guard you mail and trash from identity thieves.

Pay attention to billing cycles and ensure purchases are legitimate.

If you do become a victim of identity theft, notify the police immediately for help.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Night settles on the charade of media neutrality and objectivity. News coverage has been anything but neutral. Today the bias is more blatant than ever.

Something many of us have known for a long time, or at least suspected, is the collusion, connivance and collaboration between the mainstream media and liberal Democrats. The Democrat Party agenda fares well given the assistance of the dominant liberal/progressive media. Non-neutral news outlets include the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and NPR. Lesser leftist luminaries in the media culture include Salon, Politico, Huffington Post, Guardian and the New Republic.

Liberal/progressive media collusion helped elect Obama and continues to give him cover. It sustains his Democrat majority in congress.

When editors deliberately ignore or deflate legitimate news stories to protect their agendas, people rebel. Liberal/progressive editors who choose some stories and reject others based on their own political views carry a lion’s share of responsibility. Spiking stories like Obama’s affiliation with terrorist Bill Ayres and radical leftist Jeremiah Wright, stories like voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers and Attorney General Eric Holder’s dropping of charges against the same reflect the leftist lockstep mind set of mainstream media editorial boards.

It was Andrew Breitbart, not the dominant media, that broke the story of ACORN’s assistance in setting up a faux prostitute and her pimp in business in a half dozen cities. It was the supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer, not the dominant media, that broke the moral hijinks stories of former Senators John Edwards and Albert Gore, Jr. Yet, these stories get scant coverage.

Times are changing for the dominant media. What was once a powerful influence in American society is now in a steep decline. Not only is the mainstream media shrinking, but journalism itself is becoming a lost art. Old fashion journalism has gone the way of the horse and buggy. Liberal/progressive journalists are insulated and exist mainly for each other.

Last week the internet website the Daily Caller let sun shine on media collusion when it published the story “Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright.” The story focused on the website Journolist, a listserv, comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, sympathetic professors and progressive activists. The Daily Caller exposed many e-mails giving substance to the story’s title and in doing so highlighted the extent of collaboration between liberal/progressive journalists and their political agendas.

Representative of the e-mails is a quote from Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent. He urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. “...(T)ake one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?”

Enter a different piece of evidence of media collusion. It is humorous to watch liberal talk radio Air America mount a tepid challenge to conservative dominated talk radio. Americans didn’t buy it and Air America is gone.

Market share of the old media powerhouses continues to shrink. Not a month goes by without new reports of the collapsing newspaper industry. Huge news groups such as McClatchy and Gannett are at risk. Advertising revenue continues to plummet, newspaper employment spirals downward and newspaper chains are de-listed from the New York Stock Exchange.

Newspapers are not alone. For the last decade the Big Three network news ratings steadily declined. Their once iron grip on public opinion has loosened.

So, here is the question. Is the decline of the mainstream media a sign of 24/7 cable news coverage and the internet? Or, is the decline a sign of an increasingly leftward tilt driving readers and viewers to an alternative media? Undoubtedly, the answer is “both.” An alternative media grows as it relentlessly pursues the old dogs.

What are some of these successful alternative media outlets? Fox News is one. Conservative talk radio is another. Both have exploded in the last decade. Publications such as the Conservative Chronicle, The American Spectator and National Review have also mushroomed.

Most profound is the impact of the internet. Sites such as the Drudge Report, National Review on Line, The American Thinker, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Townhall, World Net Daily, Big Government and more, continue to proliferate and dominate.

It’s not far fetched to say the liberal/progressive mainstream media has committed a disservice to Americans. People deserve fair and balanced information free of leftist agendas.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A recent headline last proclaimed: “Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals.” The Gallup/USA Today poll concluded 43% Americans describe themselves as conservative, 35% moderate and 20% liberal. What really caught my eye, however, was the labeling of the categories as “ideologies.”

Announcement of this poll coincided with something I was reading in pursuit of my summer agenda. Specifically, I uncovered one of the finest descriptions of conservatism I’ve seen stated -- ever.

I found the particular piece buried in a book by British author Michael Oakeshott (1901-1991). He was among the most notable of political philosophers of the twentieth century. The piece, “On Being Conservative,” is contained in his book of essays titled “Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays” (1962).

In a word, Oakeshott maintains that conservatism is not an ideology as broadly ascribed by Gallup. Conservatism is not a contrivance or something premeditated. Rather, he describes conservatism as a “disposition.”

To digress for a moment, it is worth noting that the word “ideology” was coined by a Frenchman, Destutt de Tracy, following the French Revolution to describe a “science of ideas.” Napoleon used the term pejoratively referring to zealous leaders of the revolution who caused the ruin of France. Napoleon pronounced the revolutionaries “ideologues” attributing to them impractical schemes they imposed on ordinary life. Today, liberal ideologues impose diversity, income redistribution and racial quotas while denying ill intent.

Therefore, if any category can be classified as an ideology in the original sense of the word, it must be liberalism.

Michael Oakeshott was a skeptic in the tradition of St. Augustine and Montaigne. He rejected the human pretension toward the perfecting of mankind’s ability to manage and control the uncertainties of human existence.

Conservatism as a disposition is best expressed by Oakeshott himself. In his words, “If the present is arid (desolate, barren) offering little or nothing to be used or enjoyed, then this inclination will be weak or absent; if the present is remarkably unsettled, it will display itself in a search for a firmer foothold...; but it asserts itself characteristically when there is much to be enjoyed,...with evident risk of loss. In short, it is a disposition appropriate to a man who is acutely aware of having something to lose and which he has learned to care for....It will appear more naturally in the old than in the young, not because the old are more sensitive to loss but because they are apt to be more fully aware of the resources of their world and therefore less likely to find them inadequate.” The “something to lose” he refers to is liberty.

If Oakeshott is correct, then his understanding goes a long way toward explaining the Gallup/USA Today poll. It may also explain why some people unwittingly vote with liberal feelings while otherwise behaving with a conservative disposition.

Oakeshott goes on to point out that “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown,...the actual to the possible,...the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss....[T]he grief of loss will be more acute than the excitement of novelty or promise. With some people this is itself a choice; in others it is a disposition which appears, frequently or less frequently, in their preferences and aversions, and is not itself chosen or specifically cultivated.”

At one point Oakeshott elaborates unequivocally on our fascination with the illusion of change. “In general, the fascination of what is new is felt far more keenly than the comfort of what is familiar....We readily presume that all change is, somehow, for the better, and we are easily persuaded that all the consequences of our innovating activity are either themselves improvements or at least a reasonable price to pay for getting what we want.” For Oakeshott, change comes with deprivation, a sweeping away of the old, a forced removal of familiar things.

All in all, Oakeshott communicates his discussion of conservatism as a disposition in a highly readable style.

Even so, a fair criticism of Oakeshott’s essay must address his lengthy sentences. Though not difficult to read, the novice reader might be put off by his style. His sentences are neither convoluted nor wandering. In fact, when deciphering his thoughts, it’s quite possible to diagram his sentences with ease. In generating long sentences, Oakeshott creates lists of related ideas intelligently expressed. In this sense, he should be judged more for the content of his argument than by the style of his writing.

That said, it is obvious that a prerequisite, a mandate if you will, is that the reader be able to read carefully and with understanding, a tall order for a culture fixated on entertainment. An unwillingness to put forth even the slightest effort leaves one stranded in a wasteland of regret and wishfulness.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Freedom from foreign oil has an intrinsic emotional appeal. Alternatively, there is something admirable about a skeptic who, with reasoned observations, challenges conventional wisdom and crowd mentality.

            As it was with Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” so it is with author Robert Bryce’s 2008 book “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence.”

            In a word, Bryce maintains that energy independence is neither desirable nor doable. He debunks the notion that any energy consuming nation with self-imposed reduced oil supplies can ever achieve energy independence. To support his thesis he identifies some of the salient myths underlying the larger canard of energy independence and proceeds to demolish the misinformation using readily available statistics.

            One myth Bryce challenges holds that alternative and renewable energy sources will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Despite the hype and rhetoric, biofuels cannot lead the US to energy independence. Economic efficiencies from biofuels are like the tooth fairy. It’s something everyone believes in, but no one ever sees. The continued growth of all biofuel, coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid production combined will not make the US energy independent. The potential quantities produced are just too small even if it were possible to quadruple the Bush administration’s 35-billion-gallon target.

            Another myth maintains that energy independence will help stop the flow of dollars to those who wish us ill. Many politicians hold a persistent delusion that the US can influence the world oil market by withdrawing from that market.

            The demand for relatively inexpensive oil by the Indians and Chinese will increase. Every drop of oil produced by any nation goes on the world market and will be bought by someone somewhere. The Saudis, Iranians and Venezuelans will have no problem selling every barrel of oil they produce. And dollars flow.

            Yet another myth prevails. Energy independence will improve our energy security. Not true. Like it or not, energy dependence is a fact of life. Consider the growing global market for refined oil products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Hurricane Katrina closed some refineries in the US. Demand for gasoline could not be met with US capabilities so the shortage was made up by importing gas from overseas refineries.

            Arguing against global trade in gasoline, diesel and jet fuel when we have increasing requirements with no substitutes makes no sense. We have no choice but to buy on the global market.

            Here is another myth debunked by Bryce. US energy independence will bring on a collapse in world oil prices triggered by a glut of oil on the world market and that will benefit the US. Not true. Low oil prices would hurt the long term interests of the US. Cheaper oil would increase consumption in India and China at a lower cost to them. Low oil prices would also produce instability in the Middle Eastern countries. Further, it would cripple America’s domestic oil production. We must be careful what we wish for.

            Bryce discredits still another myth. US energy independence will insulate the US in the event of another oil embargo. In 1973 Arab oil producers launched an oil embargo to force a change in US policy toward Israel. The embargo backfired. Arab states suffered an economic recession they don’t wish to repeat. US support for Israel grew and resentment toward Arab states increased. After the embargo, many countries built large crude oil stocks to thwart any future embargoes.

            President Obama is forcing the energy independence issue. In November 2009 he underwrote offshore oil drilling for Brazil to the tune of $2 billion and now imposes on the US a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Concurrently, congress is about to impose climate change restrictions and taxes (formerly known as cap and trade) on Americans forcing, yes forcing, the public to conform to alternative energy mandates.

            Legislating a “green economy” is foolhardy. If there was an energy substitute for carbon fuels that didn’t need federal subsidies, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists would have jumped at the opportunity long ago.

            Bryce makes suggestions, but not for energy independence. He recommends embracing solar, nuclear and natural gas technologies. He proposes to increase domestic oil production. And, he strongly proposes getting the government out of the energy business.

            As a contrarian, I highly recommend Bryce’s book in an effort to push back the frontiers of ignorance.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Freedom from foreign oil has an intrinsic emotional appeal. Alternatively, there is something admirable about a skeptic who, with reasoned observations, challenges conventional wisdom and crowd mentality.

As it was with Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” so it is with author Robert Bryce’s 2008 book “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence.”

In a word, Bryce maintains that energy independence is neither desirable nor doable. He debunks the notion that any energy consuming nation with self-imposed reduced oil supplies can ever achieve energy independence. To support his thesis he identifies some of the salient myths underlying the larger canard of energy independence and proceeds to demolish the misinformation using readily available statistics.

One myth Bryce challenges holds that alternative and renewable energy sources will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Despite the hype and rhetoric, biofuels cannot lead the US to energy independence. Economic efficiencies from biofuels are like the tooth fairy. It’s something everyone believes in, but no one ever sees. The continued growth of all biofuel, coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid production combined will not make the US energy independent. The potential quantities produced are just too small even if it were possible to quadruple the Bush administration’s 35-billion-gallon target.

Another myth maintains that energy independence will help stop the flow of dollars to those who wish us ill. Many politicians hold a persistent delusion that the US can influence the world oil market by withdrawing from that market.

The demand for relatively inexpensive oil by the Indians and Chinese will increase. Every drop of oil produced by any nation goes on the world market and will be bought by someone somewhere. The Saudis, Iranians and Venezuelans will have no problem selling every barrel of oil they produce. And dollars flow.

Yet another myth prevails. Energy independence will improve our energy security. Not true. Like it or not, energy dependence is a fact of life. Consider the growing global market for refined oil products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Hurricane Katrina closed some refineries in the US. Demand for gasoline could not be met with US capabilities so the shortage was made up by importing gas from overseas refineries.

Arguing against global trade in gasoline, diesel and jet fuel when we have increasing requirements with no substitutes makes no sense. We have no choice but to buy on the global market.

Here is another myth debunked by Bryce. US energy independence will bring on a collapse in world oil prices triggered by a glut of oil on the world market and that will benefit the US. Not true. Low oil prices would hurt the long term interests of the US. Cheaper oil would increase consumption in India and China at a lower cost to them. Low oil prices would also produce instability in the Middle Eastern countries. Further, it would cripple America’s domestic oil production. We must be careful what we wish for.

Bryce discredits still another myth. US energy independence will insulate the US in the event of another oil embargo. In 1973 Arab oil producers launched an oil embargo to force a change in US policy toward Israel. The embargo backfired. Arab states suffered an economic recession they don’t wish to repeat. US support for Israel grew and resentment toward Arab states increased. After the embargo, many countries built large crude oil stocks to thwart any future embargoes.

President Obama is forcing the energy independence issue. In November 2009 he underwrote offshore oil drilling for Brazil to the tune of $2 billion and now imposes on the US a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Concurrently, congress is about to impose climate change restrictions and taxes (formerly known as cap and trade) on Americans forcing, yes forcing, the public to conform to alternative energy mandates.

Legislating a “green economy” is foolhardy. If there was an energy substitute for carbon fuels that didn’t need federal subsidies, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists would have jumped at the opportunity long ago.

Bryce makes suggestions, but not for energy independence. He recommends embracing solar, nuclear and natural gas technologies. He proposes to increase domestic oil production. And, he strongly proposes getting the government out of the energy business.

As a contrarian, I highly recommend Bryce’s book in an effort to push back the frontiers of ignorance.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The seen versus the unseen--. This is the essence of the sleight-of-hand game played by politicians and policy makers with constituents at all levels of government. That’s what TARP, the “stimulus,” the bailouts and the handouts are all about.

The “Broken Window Fallacy” illustrates the error of government economic planning. Politicians and bureaucrats capitalize on this fallacy -- as well as public economic illiteracy -- every day to their own advantage.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a remarkable French economic journalist. He is credited with writing a parable known as the “Broken Window Fallacy.” In it he concisely lays out what distinguishes good economics from bad economics. “The bad economist confines himself to visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

What is the “Broken Window Fallacy?” The parable begins when a hoodlum throws a brick through a shopkeeper’s window. A crowd gathers to inspect the damage and they sympathize with the shopkeeper.

Soon, however, someone in the crowd suggests that the youth who threw the brick really wasn’t guilty of vandalism. In fact, he might be regarded as a champion of sorts. Some speak of him as creating economic opportunity for everyone in town. Repairing the broken window creates work for the glazier who would then buy bread from the baker who, in turn, would buy shoes from the cobbler, and on it goes.

In effect, the same money goes around and around, but no new wealth is created. This is key.

Bastiat’s parable displays the seen effects of repairing the broken window. What is not seen is how the shopkeeper might have otherwise used his money had the hoodlum not broken the window. He might have used his money to employ a tailor to sew a new suit.

Breaking the window resulted in two unseen effects. First, the broken window forced a transfer of employment from the tailor to the glazier. Second, and more significant, it reduced the shopkeeper’s wealth and freedom of choice. If the hoodlum had not broken the window, the shopkeeper would own both his window and a new suit.

The shopkeeper’s loss may be the glazier’s gain, but it was also the tailor’s loss. What was not seen was the new suit, because it was never sewn.

The “Broken Window Fallacy” is the most persistent error in economic thinking and continues under hundreds of guises. It is perpetrated everyday by TV commentators, pundits, newspaper columnists and editorial writers, city councils and educators. They see the immediate effects of an economic policy but are not forward thinking or prescient enough to anticipate the unseen effects.

Little wonder that unintended consequences manifest themselves from the unseen effects. Even less is the wonder that people fall prey to the rhetoric of well-meaning policy makers or charlatan politicians. Many people are gullible enough to fall for the political promises proposed to solve economic problems. They’re quick to buy into the desired goals without seeing the forthcoming consequences.

When the government takes the people’s wealth in the form of taxes and announces good intentions for its use, the public ends up paying for things they would never purchase for themselves as consumers. Under government policy, personal wealth shrinks, discretionary spending diminishes, and opportunity, liberty and prosperity suffer.

A little self-education can go a long way toward remedying the situation. Articles by Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams and other columnists appearing in newspapers offer a good thumbnail sketch for economic understanding. Books by these two writers and by Friedrich Hayek (“The Road to Serfdom“), Milton Friedman (“Free to Choose“), Henry Hazlitt (“Economics in One Lesson“), Ludwig von Mises (“Human Action“) among others are available, readable and edifying.

It is possible to push back the frontiers of economic illiteracy and gullibility.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

England is officially a Christian nation. The Queen, as head of the Church of England, is sworn to uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. In fact, England was once the missionary base for the entire world. Today, unfortunately, England, and to some extent our neighbor Canada, is increasingly anti-Christian in practice.

Disquietingly, what was once Christian Europe, and particularly England, is being displaced increasingly by Islam. Although Islam, for its part, aspires to be a religion, it is much more. Separation of church and state is not part of its theology. Islam comprises a legal, political and social system and all three are inseparable from the spiritual.

In 2008 five Sharia courts (Muslim tribunals) were established in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Warwickshire and were sanctioned with the full power of the judicial system.

More explicitly, Sharia law in Islamist thought is a full service legal code that governs all personal, social and political matters. For this reason, jihad, or struggle, seeks to instill Sharia throughout every society. Sharia is believed to be a necessary component for converting a society to Islam. It “opens the eyes.”

Does recent British experience portend the future of the United States? Will America go the same route as England?

Certainly, in the US we recognize separation of church and state. Concurrent with separating church and state, the federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to place no obstacle in the way of “religion” in general and the Christian world view (the foundational thought of the Republic) in particular. That places the responsibility for the propagation of Christianity directly on the people -- if they choose. If they abdicate, the foundation crumbles.

Is American Christianity up to the task of propagating the Gospel? Or, with the steady advent of secular progressivism, are we at war with the Gospel? Either way, Islam and Sharia law is prepared to fill the vacuum.

The multicultural and political correctness mind set places the Christian, who tries to be a Christian in the workplace, at risk. Disciplinary action, sensitivity training, promotion delays and passovers and challenges by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are frequently invoked.

A government that continues to foster multicultural and PC agendas will spawn class warfare and division. Preferential treatment for sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender and creed while redistributing wealth of top wage-earners increasingly shuts out the majority Christian, Caucasian wage-earner.

The government is well on the way toward criminalizing Christian speech and practice: to wit the war on Christmas, prayer in schools and other public places, the eradication of Christian symbols in the public square and forcing private organizations such as the Boy Scouts to accept stipulations transgressing Scouting principles.

Meanwhile, women may wear jibabs, hijabs, niqabs and other religious garb but the display of crosses on walls, bibles on desks or the Ten Commandments in the public square is verboten. It’s surprising how many Christians today placidly accept this trend.

Sharing the Gospel openly is even more frowned upon. Can hate crimes enforcement be far behind?

There is a tremendous move by secular lobbyists to privatize Christianity. Christian legal organizations are forced into constant litigation to defend against anti-Christian bigotry.

The point: You may keep your faith if you keep it to yourself and it doesn’t affect you in the workplace. Closets apparently have revolving doors -- gays out, Christians in; same sex marriage out of the closet, one man one wife passé.

Small rural towns like those in North Dakota won’t feel the immediate effects. But, as with many federal programs such as highways, education and Medicare/Medicaid, once in place the laws ensnare from the top down.

In a sense, Christianity brought this situation upon itself. Rather than salting the culture, the culture has salted the church. Instead of serving as a light to the world, Christianity has withdrawn, placing its light under a bushel.

If American Christians continue to ignore the handwriting on the wall, Islam will advance with government and media assistance giving it protected status while denigrating Christianity and further eroding the American Christian base.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Commentary on the passing scene holds a fascination for many. A slight change of pace from the usual fare, however, is warranted at times. Being a Johnny One Note can be monotonous.

Focusing out of my kitchen window, I’ve experienced challenges at my bird feeders from time to time. Eventually, however, all things work for the better.

For one thing, a North Dakota spring encourages a change in behavior in some species. Take my experiences with grackles for example. Whereas there was a time when I despised the fiends, today I’m ready to let bygones be bygones.

There was a time when I said some very shabby things about grackles, those black, obnoxious birds with their cocky, iridescent heads. I was most unkind in my regard for these critters referring to them as the Darth Veders of the bird feeders. I even contemplated the effects of a pellet gun.

They were certainly deserving of my ire. After all, they conducted themselves like bullies. Four or five grackles would gang up on one feeder crowding out all other birds.

Grackles push their way in forcing the other birds to retreat to higher branches. Then they rummage through the edibles throwing most on the ground until they find just the right sunflower seed. This goes on until they eat their fill. Only then do they move on leaving a mess on the ground.

This spring I mellowed a bit and changed my attitude. I actually anticipated the return of the grackles with the migration from the south. Grackles, being their brutish, hoggish selves, have a way of cleaning up the tailings beneath the feeders left behind from foraging winter birds.

The scene is set. Here comes another naughty nuisance to the feeders. Hail villain number two, the squirrel, otherwise known as the Fuzzy Bottom Boy. I’ve never dealt successfully with this raider of the lost art.

Although not as rambunctious as the grackles, nevertheless, squirrels are just as uncouth and no more genteel in their eating habits. Inevitably seed goes flying everywhere until just the right tidbit is found.

Enter one squirrel oblivious to his trespassing upon grackle turf, so to speak. Unaware of his pending fate, a better choice of yard feeders might have saved him some embarrassment. If only he knew what was in store for him.

As the squirrel mounted the nearest feeder annoying a couple of grackles, the grackles, a bit surprised and not a little bit perturbed, move a few feet higher in the branches to observe. It was apparent the birds grew more incensed with the intruder by the minute.

After all, the grackles flew all the way from Mississippi to spend a mild summer in North Dakota. They were not about to let some measly squirrel spoil their vacation.

Watching from my kitchen window, I saw a grackle fly off, wheel about, then charge the squirrel. As if on cue, another grackle took off and swooped in. Then another, and another. In moments, a half-dozen grackles were attacking and making sport of the squirrel.

For his part, it dawned on the squirrel what was happening and he jumped from one feeder to another. He wasn’t about to abandon a meal although he was rather defenseless while eating. On the other hand, he was not immediately intimidated.

At one point the squirrel hung upside down beneath a feeder presenting a tempting target for his adversaries. Before the squirrel eventually ran off for safer ground, a robin even joined the assault much to my amazement.

I’m sure this act of aggression is not unique in the annals of aviary-dom. But for this North Dakota backyard bird watcher, it was a first.

Maybe Darth Vader has justified his room and board.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Whether history repeats itself may be debated. That history parallels itself is self-evident.

Serious times are brewing. Times of grave economic tension foment unrest and America’s predicament today is certainly volatile. This is not the first time America faced financial crisis. Nor is this the first time an entitlement mentality combined with a massive debt coalesced into precarious straits.

Witness the Bonus Army marchers in Washington, DC, during the summer of 1932. Over 43,000 World War I veterans and their families protested deferment of  bonuses earlier promised by the federal government.

In 1924, congress passed legislation authorizing bonuses to the veterans. The tradition of bonuses stretched back to 1776 when the intent was to make up the difference between what a soldier was paid and what he might have earned had he not enlisted. With the onset of the Great Depression, and because of the high cost of bonuses ($3.5 billion), the government deferred payment with interest until 1945. Experiencing high unemployment and economic hardship, however, the veterans wanted their bonuses immediately.

The Bonus Army rallied at the US Capitol to urge passage of the Patman Bonus Bill. That bill would have paid bonuses immediately. Although the House passed the bill, the Senate rejected it on June 17. For their part, the Bonus Army refused to dismantle their encampments on the Washington Mall and in the Anacostia Tidal Basin. On July 28, they marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. The police responded violently by firing shots resulting in the death of two marchers and two policemen.

President Hoover ordered the Secretary of War to disperse the marchers. Late in the afternoon, under the command of Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment supported by six tanks moved into action. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as MacArthur’s liaison with the police. The cavalry charge was led by Major George S. Patton, Jr., followed by infantry with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas (vomiting agent). Hundreds of veterans were injured, several killed and the encampments burned.

President Hoover’s image suffered greatly and contributed to his defeat by Franklin D. Roosevelt in November. But, once in office, FDR dumped the vets who had helped him win the election by vetoing further bonus legislation. Facing elections in 1936, congress overrode FDR’s veto and paid the bonuses.

Now, move ahead eight decades. What follows is not a prognostication, but a reminder of historical parallels.

The inability of today’s federal government to meet its financial obligations is rapidly approaching. Several states including California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey are already on the verge of bankruptcy.

California and New Jersey’s governors wrestle with solutions. New Jersey Governor Christie is eliminating state government positions and cutting aid to municipalities and K-12 education. Educators compare him to a terrorist and jokingly wish for his death. California Governor Schwarzenegger will eliminate the welfare-to-work program and most state subsidized child care, freeze school funding, cut state workers’ pay and deny teachers’ COLAs. As expected, the government employee unions and teacher unions fight against his reforms.

Anything the states or federal government do with their budgets will make matters worse. Continued spending and allowing debt to increase will cause investors to doubt government’s ability to repay the debt. On the other hand, cutting budgets and benefits weakens the economy perversely affecting recovery and stoking unrest. The real challenge is to distinguish the reasonable solutions from the bogus.

For the moment, North Dakota’s financial house is in order. Thanks to oil revenue and a levelheaded legislature, North Dakota cannot identify with tumultuous budget crises experienced by other states. North Dakotans certainly don’t identify with the violence of the Bonus Army days. Yet, the risk of unrest is never absent.

As an after thought, with economic chaos afoot, there is a flaw in the facade of tranquillity. As we know, congress and the president are not above shenanigans. President Obama had no problem strong-arming Germany, Great Britain and Spain and cajoling them to bail out Greece. Why would he not strong-arm a solvent state with a surplus like North Dakota into bailing out bankrupt states? Certainly, respect for the US Constitution is no deterrent for Obama and congress.

Just a thought.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A type of unintended consequence occurs when a law or regulation is established with the intent of promoting some good or positive result -- and then backfires. The unintended consequence is contrary to the end for which it was created. Sometimes they’re humorous; sometimes they’re serious. But, at no time are they intentional.

On the other hand, intended consequences, if malicious, are sinister for the harm they inflict. Malevolent intent created by government demands confronting the unthinkable.

The new federal health care law contains both unintended and intended consequences. What the senators and congressmen hawked at home is at odds with what they produced in Washington.

-This legislation was to insure 32 million additional people. It won’t. The federal government is broke.

-We were promised everyone would keep their health insurance. They won’t. People privately insured by their employers will be driven into the public option when their employers can’t afford the increased premiums covering pre-existing conditions.

-A doctor shortage exists and it will get worse. An additional 32 million people will strain the public option. Add to that strain the baby boomers and the illegal immigrants.

-Compounding the doctor shortage, the so-called “doctor fix” that would revise the Sustainable Growth Rate reimbursement calculation was not addressed in the final bill. This forces physicians to stop seeing patients, or stop practicing altogether.

-When congress inadvertently omitted its own Cadillac health care plan from the law, they looked like the Keystone Kops scrambling for a fix.

All of these and others might be labeled unintended consequences. The silent intent, however, had nothing to do with health care. The intent was to move one-sixth of the US economy comprising the health care industry from the private sector to government control.

Intended consequences forced other large segments of the economy under federal control. These include the takeover of GM and Chrysler, the co-opting of the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry to support health care legislation, the takeover of the mortgage industry, the nationalizing of the student loan programs and more. Approximately 25% of the previous private sector is now controlled by the feds.

In Obama’s drive to consolidate power, we’re witnessing the crippling of the financial industry. Behind the populist push in congress to take down Goldman Sachs, the Restoring America’s Financial Stability Act (S.3217) will further remove America’s financial strength from the private sector and place it under strict federal control.

Several previous Goldman Sachs executives were co-opted by bringing them into the federal government. Strangely, not a word is mentioned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the original cause of America’s financial woes. If there had been no Fannie and Freddie there would have been no “financial crisis.”

Another chapter is in the making with the pending cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade is not about energy independence. It has everything to do with the detailed regulatory control by the federal government of every business and individual that produces or uses carbon fuel. For example, buried in the bill is a requirement that every house sold in the US must be brought up to strict federal environmental and energy standards at the sellers expense.

We’re watching the remaking of America in the image of a closed society by the radical left in the White House and congress. The intended consequences produce tighter federal control over American lives and punishes those who dissent. Through a series of manufactured crises, control is imposed by ever-increasing non-elected bureaucrat regulation (FBI, IRS, ATF, EPA, USDA, HHS, SEC), not by legislation.

The intended consequences require everyone to eventually turn to the federal government for all needs, the opposite of limited government. Where once we had private options to choose from, we’ll soon have only the federal option requiring compliance, or fines and jail.

In its simplest form, politics is the exercise of power and control with all its intended consequences. While there is a reluctance to confront the unthinkable, we are witnessing the rapid consolidation of power at the federal level.

How fragile is our constitutional republic? Limited government with its freedom must never be taken for granted because America is always one generation from extinction. Large expansive governments always turn out the same way, and the intended consequences are never pretty.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Now that congress, including North Dakota’s congressional delegation, voted us into a catastrophic fiscal hole, everyone agrees reducing the national debt is a good thing.

But wait! Didn’t Obama, Pomeroy, Conrad and Dorgan assure us that their proposed health care “reform” bill was based on its deficit neutrality? They knew otherwise and didn’t tell us. Even the Congressional Budget Office didn’t believe the neutrality argument and said so.

Long before a final health care vote, in January 2010, Obama and congressional leaders prepared the way by agreeing to convene a debt commission that will propose recommendations targeting the reduction of the national debt.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR -- there’s that word “reform” again) will assess all government programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, federal and military retirement and every federal spending program. Their goal is to propose reductions to the annual federal deficit from 10 percent to 3 percent by 2015.

In late February Obama appointed former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson to co-chair the 18-member NCFRR.

The debt commission will include 8 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Six each will be named by House and Senate leaders, respectively. In addition to the two co-chairs, the remaining four will be named by the White House.

NCFRR members include presidential appointees Bruce Reed as Executive Director, Alice Rivlin, David Cote and Ann Fudge.

Senators include Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Michael D. Crapo (R-ID) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Representatives include Xavier Becerra (D-CA), John Spratt (D-SC), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), David Camp (R-MI), Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) and Jeb Hensarting (R-TX).

The first meeting will convene on April 27 in Washington, DC.

NCFRR will also suggest options to increase federal revenue. By now everyone knows that Senator Conrad proposed a value added tax (VAT) equivalent to a national sales tax or consumption tax. On May 27, 2009, in an interview with the “Washington Post” he stated, “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.” With his appointment to the NCFRR he now sits at that table.

Keep in mind, the VAT would not replace the income tax or the inheritance tax. VAT would be in addition to it. Thus, everyone ends up paying their “fair share,” even the poor.

Typically, congressmen and senators dodge the hard decisions. No matter that we expect them to make hard decisions. Remember, their first task is to get re-elected and they will not jeopardize that goal. Making unpopular decisions is a fast track to retirement. Rule #1: Do the legislative damage, then run and hide behind a commission. What courage!

Other attempts to avoid unpalatable political decisions over the years met with varying degrees of success. Multiple iterations of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process relieved congress from making tough decisions. BRAC’s objective was to achieve the government goal of closing and realigning military installations despite unpopular fallout. Grand Forks AFB is an example. BRAC recommendations were bundled in packages and voted on en masse by congress without amendment. That gave legislators political cover. The Pentagon proposed the same money-saving recommendations individually over the years but congress did not have the courage to act. BRAC’s fifth iteration was completed in 2005.

On the other hand, the 1994-1995 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, on which Senator Simpson sat, failed to reach consensus on its recommendations. No matter. Politicians went their merry way in congress attempting to enact the recommendations piecemeal with varying degrees of success.

NCFRR’s deadline for recommendations is December 1, 2010, and that could prove a challenge. If it is any consolation, 14 of the 18 members must agree on all proposed recommendations. That kind of agreement might be difficult given the difference of opinions on the commission.

Regardless of the commission’s recommendations, the first session of the 112th Congress will have a new composition of members with which Obama must work.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Effective April 1, 2010, a 21% fee cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors went into effect.

While senators and congressmen on Easter vacation fanned out across the country selling the wonders of their health care handiwork, seniors remained concerned that congress failed once again to solve Medicare’s cut to doctors’ fees.

Here’s the recent congressional track record on the doctor fee fix. Cuts in the doctor payment rates have been deferred for years. Until deferred by congress, recent cuts were to go into effect in October 2009, then January 1, 2010, then February 28. However, because congress did not act before the most recent deadline, the rate cuts are now in effect as of April 1.

Congress created the problem originally. Here’s the background. Law requires Medicare payment rates to adjust each year for inflation -- except for doctor services. Doctor rates are set by a complicated mechanism established in 1997 called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula.

SGR is an ill-conceived archaic cost control measure. It establishes artificial “spending targets” (price controls) for annual health care expenditures based on the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If costs exceed the artificially set targets, doctor rates are cut. Incredibly, the GDP has no relation to the cost of doctor services or the actual cost of delivering health care.

Although congress has overridden the doctor fee cuts in the past, as they must do by law to prevent the cuts from going into effect, they are not obligated to intercede on a continuing basis. This year, congress did not act decisively in time to block the fee cut and consequently the cut went into effect on April 1 where it remains.

Knowingly using this flawed formula is unconscionable. The compounding problem will result in a cumulative fee cut of 25% in 2011.

In the past, “patches” were occasionally legislated retroactively, but that served only as a temporary fix. Supposedly, early in the second session of the 111th Congress, a “patch” will be enacted retroactively. It’s anybody’s guess why congress doesn’t come up with a permanent fix. They just keep kicking the can down the road.

How long will doctors live with congressional brinkmanship? How long will doctors rely on Medicare to pay them not knowing when or how much? Increasingly doctors no longer accept new Medicare patients. How long before doctors solve their problem by turning away existing Medicare patients as well? Or, simply terminate their practice altogether?

Even the much touted nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that continued reduction in doctor Medicare reimbursements will reduce beneficiaries’ access to medical care.

Medicare is just the tip of the iceberg. Congress typically keeps putting off a permanent fix in other areas. This is true of the way congress handles inefficient government programs like Social Security, the US Postal Service, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We’ll all grow old waiting for accountability from congress.

Congress should have focused on substantive health care issues such as the doctor fee travesty and solved it once and for all rather than overhaul the entire health care system to the detriment of the large majority.

Pushing for universal health care rather than solving existing problems, President Obama has demonstrated that he is a radical governing from the left. Unbelievably, North Dakota’s congressional delegation, wittingly or not, follows his lead.

If our congressional delegation won’t solve straight forward problems like the doctor fee enigma, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

Is it time for regime change?

Massive health care overhaul is a “done deal” despite its unpopularity.

One group is particularly concerned about their future medical care and the impact of the health care overhaul bill. These are the men and women of the armed services including veterans, retirees and active duty personnel -- the people who actually did something for their country. Unbelievably, medical compensation for their service is now at risk.

After the fact, House lawmakers had second thoughts on March 20 and voted 403 to 0 on HR 4887 to protect TRICARE military beneficiaries from unintended consequences of the national health care overhaul bill (HR 3590) signed into law by President Obama on March 23. This is what happens when congress doesn’t read a 2700 page bill.

HR 4887 would clarify the tax code to ensure that TRICARE coverage provided by Department of Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage. This clarification would secure service members, retirees and their families from requirements to purchase additional coverage or pay penalties to meet the new health insurance requirements.

With passage of the national health care reform bill, skepticism and anxiety among military veterans and retirees has never been higher. That uneasy feeling is justified. Here’s why.

Efforts were made early on to include corrective language in both the health care overhaul bill and the reconciliation bill addressing issues for veterans and retirees from all services. However, recommendations and suggestions provided to the House and Senate by The Military Coalition were patently rejected.

The Military Coalition (http://www.themilitarycoalition.org) is an alliance of 34 organizations representing 5.5 million members of the uniformed services -- active, reserve, retired, survivors, veterans -- and their families. The unified efforts of these organizations including the Association of the US Army, the Air Force Association, the Association of the US Navy, the National Association of the Uniformed Services, the Marine Corps League and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, among others, give voice to a broad cross section of military veterans and retirees. TMC may be one of the most formidable lobbying forces ever to fight on behalf of service members.

Nevertheless, the House and Senate chose not to honor any change in language and rejected amendments to “fix” HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and HR 4872, the Health Care Reconciliation Act.

It is unknown what the Senate will do now with the House-passed HR 4887. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Both houses of congress chose not to adopt clarifying language in the original bills and this does not sit well with veterans groups. Why should they trust White House and congressional leaders who rejected amendments to the bills’ language and who now “assure” veterans and retirees that the health care reform law will not adversely affect VA and TRICARE beneficiaries? Without the explicit language in the law, assurances from the highest levels leave room for doubt, a lot of doubt. Concerns remain high among millions of active and retired military and veterans of all services despite the continuing sales pitch by congressmen and senators on Easter recess.

Who’s looking out for the military veterans and retirees? Certainly not the North Dakota congressional delegation. Given the opportunity, Senators Conrad and Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy did not act to protect the health care needs of the military, the same military that protects them.

Undoubtedly, health care for everyone must be paid for. At what cost? Broken promises to veterans in order to fund the health care bill? The budgets of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are easy targets for cutting funds to pay for the health care overhaul.

At the current rate, military veterans and retirees can look forward to fighting over budget scraps doled out by an ungrateful congress after “higher” priorities are funded. It was never supposed to be like this. It is ethically and morally correct that promises made to veterans and retirees decades ago be kept.

If military veterans and retirees must do battle with other government departments for a diminishing slice of the health care pie, then they are up for one more fight.

Game on!

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).