Category Archives: Current Events

“According to His Will”

     “This is the state of the contemporary Liberal world – the fear of giving offense has been self-inculcated in a group which must, now, consider literally every word and action for potential violation of the New Norms” (David Mamet, in The Secret Knowledge).

     That, as well as anything, explains the recent self-immolation of a colleague on the “Orthodox left” (perhaps, better, “left Orthodoxy”) who demeaned and denounced the daily blessing recited by men thanking G-d for “not having made me a woman” and opined that he has stopped saying it, in breach of a Jewish tradition that is several millennia old. Stealing from the non-Orthodox playbook, he castigated Orthodoxy for its “maltreatment” of women, and our “inherited prejudice that…women possess less innate dignity than men.” He even brazenly declared the blessing a “Desecration of G-d’s Name,” trampling any sense of propriety and humility and demonstrating the ability to leap over the spiritual giants of Jewish life in a single bound – quite a stupendous feat.

    To be sure, the condemnation of his remarks elicited from him a standard (and partial) retraction, apologizing for the stridency of the remarks but not their substance. This is the flip side of a fairly typical liberal criticism, the clichéd “it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it,” when, actually it is the substance, often irrefutable, that bothers them. Here, not only was the tone repugnant, but the sentiments were equally abhorrent – and were not only not withdrawn but educed defenders from the “left Orthodoxy” who are adept at finding the one source that seems to support their views (even if it doesn’t) and are blithely contemptuous of Jewish tradition, history, custom and the wisdom of our Sages. It is impossible to read his remarks without sensing that he perceives the Talmudic sages and their spiritual successors down to our day as, G-d forbid, small, bigoted, and immoral people who are his moral inferiors. One wonders why he can respect anything that they say, being so flawed, and why any of his students or congregants should care to study the opinions of those hopeless misogynists. A rabbi must have enormous self-confidence, to say the least, to set himself up as judge and jury over the guardians and transmitters of the divine word, and he must also be inordinately sensitive to feel pain when none is intended.

     Some of my learned colleagues have written eloquent articles about the provenance of this particular blessing, starting with the Yerushalmi (Brachot, Chapter 9) that explains it as referring to man’s obligation in Mitzvot that are numerically greater than those of a woman, a servant and a heathen. (See, e.g., Rav Dov Fischer at http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/08/08/who-hast-not-made-me-a-liberal-rabbi/). Another distinguished colleague wrote beautifully of an encounter with a woman who said that she loved the female version of the blessing – a woman correspondingly recites a blessing thanking G-d “for creating me according to his will.” She understood it as follows: women were the last entity created during the six days of creation, and therefore represented G-d’s special creation – the only entity created perfectly, “according to His will.” It is the man who recites wistfully that G-d did not make him a woman. Not only is that interpretation clever, creative, respectful of Chazal, and reflective of a joy and contentment with life, it also echoes Rav Hirsch’s commentary that women are spiritually superior to males and naturally closer to G-d than men are. I don’t have to agree – I think men and women are spiritually equal before G-d but just given different roles – to respect her satisfaction with her station in life. That is true love of G-d and love of Torah – the exact opposite of the embittered assault on Torah and Orthodoxy (among other sins – batei din, agunot, the lack of female rabbis, etc.) that emanated from the quarters mentioned above. The task of the Rabbi is to teach Torah to the unlearned, not reinforce their basest stereotypes, and one who chooses an interpretation of Chazal’s words that put them in a bad light, as opposed to teaching the many traditional interpretations that are holy and positive, is defining himself and his biases rather than the Torah. Indeed, it is peculiar that a rabbi who claims to be concerned with women’s spiritual dignity would find that dignity not in a uniquely feminine role but in rank mimicry of man’s role.

     We are living through a period of history in which “sensitivity” has become so acute that every word and deed is scrutinized by self-appointed moralists for even the possibility of offense, and in a world in which we try to co-exist with numerous individuals who are always taking offense about something or other. Some people are just thin-skinned, but today there are many who have no skin at all; they are just a bundle of raw nerves, claiming either victimhood or an unrestricted license to protect potential victims as they see it, and using that status as a club with which to beat the less-enlightened who do not share their views. There is little that, read a certain way, does not give offense, so here’s a brief list of blessings that the fastidious might also consider omitting:

     Blessed is Hashem…Hamelamed Torah l’amo Yisrael (who teaches Torah to His peopleIsrael) – might offend the world by singling out the Jewish people for our special relationship with G-d;

 …hamachzir neshamot lifgarim meitim (who restores souls to dead bodies) – might offend those who r”l die in their sleep;

She’lo asani goy (who did not make me a heathen) – might offend non-Jews;

She’lo asani aved (who did not make a slave) – might offend the working man;

 …pokeach ivrim – (who opens the eyes of the blind) – might offend the blind;

 …matir assurim – (who unties the bound) – might offend the incarcerated;
 … zokef kfufim – (who straightens the bent) – might offend the hunchback;

 …she’asa li kol tzarki – (who provides all our needs, i.e., shoes) – will offend Shoeless Joe Jackson;

… hameichin mitzadei gaver (who prepares the steps of man) – might offend the lame;
 …Ozer yisrael bigvura and oter yisrael b’tifara (who girdsIsrael with might, who adornsIsrael with splendor) – really offends non-Jews who apparently were not so blessed with might or splendor;

hanoten laya’ef koach (who gives strength to the weary) – will offend the exhausted who nonetheless wake up every morning;

Yotzer ha’meorot (who formed the luminaries) – offends evolutionists, and sounds too much like the claims of those right-wing creationists.

Habocher b’amo yisrael b’ahava (who chose His people Israel with love) – offends…well, it is obvious. There are many others. It is not that everyone will be offended by everything; it is rather that someone might be offended by some of them, and the sensitivity police will be on the case, poseurs all.

     And, of course, noten Hatorah (who gave us the Torah) – will offend those who do not believe that G-d actually gave us the Torah but assume it is a man-made ball of wax that can be shaped as they wish in order to conform to the prevailing political correctness of every generation.

   But I suppose that is the whole point of this exercise. My colleague prefers to abstain from this blessing citing the Rabbinic dictum “Shev v’al taaseh, adif” (“it is preferable to sit and not do…”) Of course, that dictum is our general recourse when we confront a conflict of laws – when an action will simultaneously fulfill and violate different commandments; it is does not at all relate to a case in which one chooses not to fulfill  mitzva because he has shamefully construed it as a “sin.” And what really is the source of the alleged sin, to add to Mamet’s quotation at the top ?

     One of my distinguished colleagues recently called attention to the introduction of the Steipler Gaon to his work “Chayei Olam.” The Steipler writes that too many Jews are spiritually perplexed – either a consequence of intellectual confusion or uncontrollable desires whetted by what they see in the world around them – and usually because they have gazed in the works of free-thinkers whose words are impure and transmit impurity, and this nonsense is retained in and shapes their minds. And then he writes (translation mine): “It is appropriate to respond to these confused individuals that do they really think that they are the first people ever to have these questions and doubts ? Does it take some genius to be thus confused ? Rather do you not understand that thousands of the giants of Israel in every generation wrestled with every possible question, doubt and angle – and yet their faith remained perfect and complete, in force, and they all served the will of their Creator with fear and reverence because their souls were pure and in the light of their understanding they saw the truth clearly – what is true and what is false and counterfeit… From the simple faith of all our Rabbis, you will be able to understand that for every question and doubt there are clear answers….”

     Part of humility is deference to those whose wisdom, deeds and moral attainments were greater than ours, and teachers of Torah should attempt to inculcate that deference – rather than affect an air of moral superiority. This most recent effort to impose the fleeting morality of modern times on the eternal values of Chazal does more than disparage generations of Jews – men and women – who properly understood the intellectual depth and moral goodness of our Sages; worse, it ordains every individual to pass ultimate judgment on every aspect of the Torah, filtering every detail through a subjective moral code that will differ from person to person. Such lacks more than just humility; it undermines the unity of the Jewish people, our faith in Torah, and our acceptance of the “yoke of the divine kingship.”

      Many have traveled down that road; few have returned. The substance is as shallow as the articulation was disgraceful. Both should be withdrawn, and the honor of our Sages and their formulation of our daily prayers, and the spiritual dignity of men and women, affirmed.

Six Years Later

    The fast of Tish’a B’Av commemorates the litany of suffering that has
befallen the Jewish people since the sin of the biblical spies, who renounced
Jewish destiny on the eve of our entry to the land of Israel. That night – the ninth of Av – became the day set aside for punishment, and for reckoning with the tribulations of Jewish history – the arrows, swords, gas chambers and bombs of our enemies, as well as the self-inflicted wounds that have scarred our service of G-d and the execution of our divine mission.

     Events as varied as the destruction of the two Holy Temples, the fall of
Betar, the Expulsion from Spain in 1492, and the start of World War I 97 years
ago all occurred on Tish’a B’Av. The most recent tragedy added to this
lamentable cycle occurred just six years ago – the Ninth of Av, in the year
2005, was the last day of legal Jewish residence in Gush Katif (in Gaza) and
the northern Shomron. That Expulsion, another example of a self-inflicted
wound, began on the following day, and the repercussions are still real and tangible.

       One way to relive this tragedy – which drove almost 9000 Jews out of their
homes and jobs, and saw the destruction of synagogues, Yeshivot and a thriving
Jewish life – is to visit the Gush Katif Museum in Yerushalayim (5 Shaarei Tzedek Street, about a five minute walk from Machaneh Yehudah). It is a haunting experience that easily evokes sadness, anger, frustration and compassion, sequentially and simultaneously. The museum depicts the history of Jewish settlement in that region – dating from the time of our patriarch Yitzchak – and throughout Jewish history. In its most recent incarnation, one settlement in Gush Katif – Kfar Darom – shares a history with Gush Etzion just south of Yerushalayim. Both blocs were settled by Jews on purchased land before 1948, both were evacuated after the residents were massacred during the War of Independence, and both were resettled after the Six Day War. (To a Foreign Ministry official who recently stated, while  with a group looking at the Etzion Bloc, that Gush Etzion would never be abandoned “because it was settled before 1948,” I asked: “what about Kfar Darom?” My question was met with a grim smile and then a stony silence.

    But the history of Gush Katif, through a timeline, does not begin to
convey the essence of the visiting experience, nor do the pictures of recent life
in Gush Katif – the flourishing of farms, businesses, and hothouses, the pious
life of those pioneers – lovers of Israel who deserved better – and the years
of struggle, against an Arab enemy bent on mayhem and finally a “right-wing” Israeli government that brutally bulldozed their homes and dreams. It was the distressing sound track; the background noise throughout the museum are the actual sounds of the Expulsion – filmed and recorded – soldiers breaking down doors, anguished cries of men and women, the bewilderment of children who do not understand why they are being forced from their homes by soldiers of their own army. It is chilling. There are screens throughout the several rooms that incessantly run the scenes of the expulsion, and a video screened separately that shows the destruction of the aftermath – the burning of the shuls by the Arabs, the devastation of the hothouses that could have provided an income to the “poor” of Gaza had they not demolished them in a demonic frenzy, and the fierce resolve and determination of these settlers that was only broken by a Jewish government, including black-shirted forces of the Israeli government who were trained to employ about a dozen stock phrases (all on display as well) repeated, and repeated, robotically, mechanically. The few soldiers who are shown crying were quickly spirited away, so as not to demoralize the expulsion forces.
There was no resistance that could actually be called resistance. One
family hung a sign on its door (now displayed in the museum, translation mine): “Dear soldier/police officer, Stop!! Here for 12 years dwells the Konki
family in happiness. If you knock on the door, you will be a direct partner in
the worst crime perpetrated in the annals of the nation of Israel. Don’t do
this! You are not obligated to execute this cruel order. We will not be
expelled from our home! We will never leave here!”
They too were driven
out, with no place to go.

    If the expulsion were not horrific enough (it did bring great joy to the
Arabs, and electoral success to Hamas in the elections of 2006), the aftermath
was just as pitiless. The government essentially abandoned the settlers, left
them unemployed and unable to find permanent homes, with reparations that fell far short of the value of their homes and businesses, and in a spiteful twist, the obligation to continue to pay the mortgages on their ruined homes. Private
individuals stepped into the breach, in the grand tradition of a compassionate
people, and one in particular, Rav Yosef Rimon of Alon Shvut, stands out for
his self-sacrifice and tireless commitment to help every resident, with the
founding of JobKatif (see their ongoing work at www.Jobkatif.org)  that endeavored to build new lives in new communities. It has not been easy.

     The most recent figures show that after six years, 17% remain unemployed, only 28% of the farmers have even partially restored their farms, only 24% have found permanent housing, and 76% still live in temporary housing (often, caravans dubbed caravillas). About half the businesses have restarted, many in Yad Binyamin and Nitzan – and all these figures are a dramatic improvement from even two years ago. And a friendlier government just passed a new compensation package that is fairer without yet providing full compensation. Sad to say, there were suicides and divorces for those who could not bear the strain.

     Some will argue the great benefit of the Expulsion – the disengagement of Israeli forces from Gaza and the concomitant end to the need to defend the relatively few Jews who lived there. But territory lost is not easily regained, and the brief Gaza war that followed the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is directly attributable to Israel’s more vulnerable position after the expulsion. Undoubtedly, the military infrastructure that existed in Gaza would have precluded the long-term captivity of Gilad Shalit, whose tragic plight is a direct consequence of the loss of Gush Katif. Of course, if Israel would withdraw from every place in which lives are jeopardized, it would even smaller than it is today, and Sderot and dozens of other communities whose residents’ lives became even more miserable in the aftermath of the expulsion – to the tune of more than 10,000 rockets – would no longer exist.

     Not that it matters, but polls in Israel showed almost immediate regret, and more recent polls indicate that 2/3 of the respondents who supported the expulsion now regret their decision. Yet, more than half do not favor current resettlement of Gush Katif, but even that figure is low considering that resettlement now would obviously require a victory in war.

    The other consequences are more personal but equally telling. All the major government figures involved in the expulsion have had their lives visibly destroyed. Ariel Sharon remains in his own personal exile, suspended between the living and the dead, between heaven and earth, for more than five years. Ehud Olmert left office in shame, compounded by the ignominy of the several criminal trials that he is currently litigating. Moshe Katzav, who as president was not an active supporter but did nothing to stop the expulsion, left office in disgrace, convicted of rape and sentenced to prison (appeal pending). Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz is on the outside of politics looking in, and the IDF Chief Rabbi, who later regretted and apologized for his participation, suffered public rebuke and career turmoil. Dan Halutz, appointed as Chief of Staff when Boogie Yaalon was dismissed because Yaalon could not be trusted by Sharon to carry out his plans, soon presided over the 2006 Lebanon War fiasco and resigned in shame. Only Shimon Peres landed on his feet, elected President after Katzav was forced to resign – but even Peres was repudiated by his own party and lost the election to be Labor Party leader just three months after the expulsion. In a real sense, Binyamin Netanyahu salvaged his career by belatedly opposing the expulsion and resigning from the Sharon cabinet, and Ehud Barak was out of government altogether. All others have paid a steep price, as it turns out.

    Israel democracy also underwent a terrible crisis from which it has yet to recover. Sharon’s deceit, and manipulation of votes (firing members of the cabinet to provide himself an artificial majority, ignoring the results of the Likud referendum, etc.), has undermined many people’s faith – especially the young – in democracy, the authority of the Israeli government, police and military, and the wisdom and morality of its leaders.

    The Expulsion from Gush Katif was therefore a debacle in every respect, and the full price has yet to be paid. I own a book called “Encyclopedia Idiotica,” which depicts history’s worst decisions – Napoleon’s march on Russia, Custer’s last stand, Churchill at Gallipolli, Chernobyl and the like – which, unfortunately, was published before the Gush Katif disaster. Perhaps a future addition will include it – how a nation willfully wronged its own citizens in a misguided effort to promote its national security and better its international image.     We can only pray that its true benefit lies in the reluctance future governments will have to similar abuse its own people.
In the interim, it behooves all – especially those with short memories – to visit the Gush Katif Museum (admission discounted for the next week) in Yerushalayim and live through one of the saddest, self-destructive events in the history of the Jewish people, and pray for a better future.

Bloodlands

The Nine Days of national mourning, leading up to the Ninth of Av, commemorate all the travails of Jewish history. It is a timely opportunity to re-visit the horrors of the Holocaust. One who thinks that there is nothing that possibly could be added to our knowledge of the Holocaust should read last year’s “Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin,” by Yale professor Timothy Snyder. It is a book that is brutal, unsparing and, if it could be said, sheds new light on the Holocaust.

    The bloodlands were the areas of Eastern Europe between the Baltic and the Black Sea, primarily Western Russia and Ukraine, nearby provinces and especially Poland, situated between Hitler and Stalin, territory that was fought over and occupied by both Germany and the USSR – and the area in which most of the mass murder committed between 1933-1945 took place. A reviewer last year in the Wall Street Journal suggested that Jews might be disappointed in the book, which places the Holocaust in “perspective,” as a part of the massacres that took place in that locale that consumed more than fourteen million civilian lives during that period – through intentional policies of mass starvation, liquidation of elements potentially hostile to Hitler and Stalin and the Holocaust. I disagree, because the accounts of the genocide that we call the Holocaust are sufficiently distinct and horrific that the Holocaust remains unique, with a level of evil that is still truly unfathomable.

    The sordid tale begins with Stalin’s mass murder in the mid-30’s, the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians to reduce their population, and a story that is chilling to read. They were simply deprived of food – a tactic that Hitler later used to murder Soviet POWs (most died within a month, simply given nothing to it). Stalin then added to his resume with the Great Terror of the late 1930’s, the murder of hundreds of thousands of political opponents, perceived threats, peasants, minorities and undesirables – and this long before Hitler had begun his extermination programs. (In sum, although the numbers are not always precise, Stalin murdered more than Hitler, but, in a century infamous for killing – the worst in history – Mao Zedong murdered more than either Hitler or Stalin, estimated at seventy million Chinese civilians executed during his progressive reign.)

   Hitler and Stalin killed together, when they occupied Poland from 1939-1941, several hundred thousand members of the Polish elites and intelligentsia, and, of course, Poland became the killing fields of the Holocaust when Nazi Germany
built six death camps scattered about Poland – where, in addition to the
murders committed in the occupied USSR, Snyder estimates that Germans killed approximately 5.4 million Jews. (Interestingly, and sometimes maddeningly, Snyder refuses to use the “six million” figure for those victims of Germany – at one point writing that Germans murdered 5.2 million Jews, and at another point, 5.4 million Jews. Omitted in these calculations, but referenced
elsewhere in the book, are the hundreds of thousands of Jews murdered by
Romanians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and occasionally Russians, which brings the total to the infamous 6,000,000 Jews murdered in the Nazi genocide.)

   Snyder contrasts and compares the Soviet and German styles of genocide, the various rationalizations and methods, and the systematic nature of both. While Hitler almost exclusively murdered non-Germans, Stalin primarily murdered his own citizens. Hitler, had he successfully advanced eastward and captured Moscow and much of the Soviet Union, would have simply starved the population – tens of millions to death. He did succeed in murdering three million Soviet POWs within a few months, through mass starvation. Incomprehensibly, they were doomed in any event, as Stalin ordered the execution of any Soviet prisoner who was freed, on the assumption that any survivor was a traitor. (This included Stalin’s own son, who was captured in battle and for whose freedom Stalin refused to negotiate; Stalin’s son committed suicide in German prison.)

    Among his findings, many of which are counterintuitive but meticulously researched, was that our impressions of Holocaust are skewed because they are shaped by accounts of the survivors of the concentration camps – but they were, to use an unfortunate term, the “fortunate” victims of the Holocaust. They had a chance of survival. The death camps – Treblinka, Birkenau, Chelmno,  Maidanek, Sobibor and Belzec – had few survivors (some death camps literally had none or a handful) to tell their tales. For all of Auschwitz’ notoriety – all deserved, and certainly it is not meant here to depreciate the horror – Jews were killed faster through the “shooting squads” and at Treblinka and Sobibor. By the time Auschwitz became the major death factory, most Jewish victims of the Holocaust had already been murdered; by the time Birkenau opened for its grisly business – in the spring of 1943 – ¾ of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were already dead. And most Jews never saw the inside of a concentration camp – they were either gunned down near their homes, died of malnutrition or starvation, or were gassed immediately upon arrival in one of the murder facilities. (For example, we are familiar with the gruesome tattoos that were given to Jews upon arrival at some concentration camps – but most Jews were not tattooed; they were simply murdered even before they were numbered and dehumanized. Or, we are too familiar with the dreadful, unspeakable treatment of Jews in Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc. But those were not killing centers – Jews (and others) were killed there, and died of disease there, but the purpose of the incarceration there was not to kill them but to exploit them. Most Jews suffered a more immediate fate – a quick death.)

     Interestingly, Allied forces never made it as far as the bloodlands, which were liberated by Soviet forces – still another reason why American and survivor accounts are centered on smaller concentration camps and not the major killing zones.

     Similarly, the Nazi extermination program was not random or haphazard, but painstaking in its organization. The pace of extermination of Jews varied from time to time. If labor was needed, then Jews were kept alive to serve the Nazi war machine. If food was needed more, even considering the meager amount of food provided to inmates, then those laborers were just murdered. Most Polish Jews were murdered before the end of 1942, when they were construed by the Nazis as “useless eaters.” But in 1943, Hans Frank (Nazi Governor-General of Poland) needed labor and kept Jews alive longer, working them to death rather than gassing them. This accounts for the survival of Jews in the concentration camps – as long as they could work – and the systematic massacre in the death camps of those who could not or were not given the opportunity. Jews imprisoned in the ghettoes could not figure out the logic of deportations, but there was a cruel and macabre logic behind it. Killing Jews was a Nazi war objective, but as the war raged and Nazi fortunes plummeted, it became the primary objective of the collapsing Reich.

       Part of the confusion lies in the dual “use” of Auschwitz, a concentration and labor camp to which was attached (for administrative purposes) the death camp at Birkenau about two miles away. The accounts of the methodical slaughter  are still unnerving, despite their familiarity – the enlistment of Jews in the machinery of death in the ghettoes and in some camps, the inhuman viciousness of Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others who served as guards, the Poles who would mock the deportation trains as they passed by moving a figure across their throats, and the “efficiency” of some death factories and the problems found in others. His account of the last minutes of life for thousands of Jews in Treblinka could serve as an elegy on Tish’a B’Av.

    Snyder concludes with an analysis of racial and Jew-hatred post-Holocaust, in Poland and especially in the Soviet Union in which Stalin resumed his mass killings and shortly before his death plotted the extermination of every Jew in his realm – even, sad to say, loyal Communists. Part of his paranoia was because of the establishment of the State of Israel, which indeed brought joy to many Soviet Jews. (One Politburo member’s wife exclaimed: “Now, we too have our own homeland!”) Stalin felt that no Jew could thenceforth be loyal to the USSR. Litvinov, the late 1930’s Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, had been fired because he was a Jew with whom Hitler refused to negotiate, and replaced by Molotov – whose Jewish wife was arrested in 1949 and charged with treason – at which point Molotov himself was fired (because his wife was Jewish). The irony, of course, is that Molotov was chosen because he wasn’t Jewish and Litvinov was, and then fired because his own wife was Jewish.

   Seventy years have passed since the start of the Holocaust, and it is still difficult to wrap our minds about the nature of the ruthlessness and inhumanity that perpetrated that evil. “Bloodlands” can’t explain it fully either, but places it in the context of two evil regimes who perceived the survival of their political and social philosophies as dependent on the systematic extermination of real and imagined enemies. It is not a book exclusively about Jewish suffering during World War II, but about the suffering inflicted on human beings – many of whom were Jews who were indeed singled out for special horrors. It is a sobering reminder that evil in the world remains, and we err in seeking it only in the forms and patterns to which we have become accustomed. We err as well in thinking that evil that targets one population will not eventually spread to others, as Westerners learned in the last two decades when it deemed Arab terror as just a “Jewish problem.”

    Not quite.

The Guilty Party

Imagine a person who gains an average of ten pounds a year. After a decade, having gained 100 pounds, he decides to go on a weight-loss program during which he will gain only 8 pounds a year. He then boasts that he is losing weight, at a rate of two pounds a year. Fanciful ? Ridiculous ?

Now imagine a family that borrows $100,000 annually to meet its expenses (just assume there would be a lender foolhardy enough to provide the funding). After ten years, the family has accumulated one million dollars in debt. That round figure jars them out of their complacency, and due to the precariousness of their state, for the next several years, they only overspend by $80,000 per year. They slap themselves on the back, even throw a party for themselves and their friends, as they trumpet the news that they have cut their spending, and are reducing their deficit, by $20,000 per year. Ludicrous?

Of course! The first person just continues to gain weight – eight pounds a year – and the second family continues to increase its debt at the rate of $80,000 per year. Who in his right mind would ever consider that losing weight or cutting a deficit ?

Welcome to the American government of 2011 – a President who is in over his head and out of his element and a Congress that presides over an economic catastrophe fueled by farcical policies promulgated by flummoxed but hypocritical legislators.

The news that the debt ceiling will be raised (of course) is being trumpeted alongside the Great Compromise of 2011: the enormous and painful concession that, allegedly, over the next ten years, the deficit will be reduced by two trillion dollars or so (!). But unmentioned in the Kabuki theater of government is that the deficit will actually increase over those ten years by more than ten trillion
dollars. So the whole vituperous debate was over the issue of overspending in
the next ten years by 12 trillion dollars or just 10 trillion dollars. How can
that be considered “cutting the deficit” ? Please see the two examples above.
And note, again, how the deficit will increase more than two trillion dollars
over the next two years (the debt ceiling raise) and the reduction of two trillion dollars will occur (allegedly) over the next ten years. Nothing will change, except that the economy will get worse.

And all that assumes that even two trillion dollars will be cut over the next ten years. The likelihood of that happening is actually nil, even if the solons will piously intone that “they didn’t get all they wanted.” In just this and next year, when the debt ceiling will accommodate another two trillion dollars of deficit
spending, just a few dozen billion dollars will be shaved from spending. In
just two years, the debt ceiling will be raised again, and then again, and
again, with Congressmen proclaiming their fiscal responsibility, their austerity,
their patriotism, and their need for re-election in order to save the Republic.
And Congress can always vote to increase spending and to change this hasty and imprudent legislation.

Finally, the American people have seen bi-partisanship – a bi-partisan disgrace. There are a mere handful of legislators who deserve to serve in Congress altogether, and almost none in the northeast. The Democrats are completely clueless, to the point of corruption. Granted, the Republicans have been big spenders too, but the numbers don’t lie: under the Bush Administration, the government ran a daily deficit of $1.4 billion – i.e., every day, the government spent almost a billion and a half dollars more than it took in. That was unconscionable, until we reckon with the Obama mismanagement that runs a daily deficit of more than $4 billion – i.e., and let this sink in, every day the US government spends $4,000,000,000 more than it takes in – and that figure will continue to increase in the coming years, not decrease. If Obama has spent – annually – a trillion dollars more than the profligate Bush, then it is obvious the American government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem (revenues have increased in the last ten years, especially after the Bush tax cuts), and it is equally obvious that nothing will be done about it.

America, sad to say, is now in decline, precisely as Obama broadcasted during his campaign, and he has deliberately accelerated that decline. It should be evident that the US’s credit rating should be downgraded – how could it not ? The debt is astronomical and is not being dealt with in a serious way by serious people. A person who spent like that could not get a loan even from a loan shark; why should a country be different ?

Perhaps the time has come to place the blame squarely on the guilty parties, and they do not work in Washington. For sure, the politicians of both parties are largely incompetent, many are corrupt and motivated by self-interest, and most serve to get re-elected and prepare their golden parachute. Those who come into office wealthy (most of them) are motivated by power and honor, and yet leave office wealthier. But they are not primarily to blame.

The guilty are the American people, and not merely because they vote these clowns into office year after year. The American people are guilty because they have embraced a narcissism that measures a politician’s worth by how much of other people’s money can be sent their way. Thus poll after poll indicates that Americans do not want to pay more taxes (understandably so) but they also want the government freebies to continue – health care, jobs, Social Security, unemployment, perks. Americans want the free lunch, and then dessert, all on someone else’s tab. They want (or many want) to give illegal immigrants free health care, food stamps and public education – as long as it is on the government’s dime and not theirs, clearly oblivious to the fact that government has no money. Government only has the people’s money, or most importantly, what it can borrow or print.

Politicians who made wild promises to get elected are certainly corrupt, but they knew their adience very well. Congress (and LBJ) willfully and illegally raided the Social Security trust fund beginning in the late 1960’s in order to make the Great Society budget imbalance look better, and knowing they were turning SS into the biggest Madoff/Ponzi scheme in history. The money taken out of each of our paychecks to “provide” a stipend for our retirement is long gone, replaced by the IOU’s of a certifiably bankrupt government. It is all spent. But that money became a slush fund for politicians – here, mainly Democrats again – to use for current “needs,” hence the apoplexy that greeted President Bush’s proposal to allow partial “privatization” of Social Security – i.e., allow people to set aside just 10% of their retirement money and invest it themselves. It doesn’t seem like a lot, but liberals could not allow even that small amount of “retirement” money to be removed from the government coffers and deprive them of their desired spending today. (Of course, they argued that the “market” would cause people to lose money and “endanger” their retirement. What a macabre joke – the Social Security funds are perhaps the worst investment around, notwithstanding that it has all been squandered.)

There was a time in the early years of American independence when only landowners were allowed to vote. What sounds strange to our modern ears actually was quite logical: landowners were the only taxpayers, and only people with skin in the game should have a say in how their money is spent. That changed, of course, until today we have a situation when 70% of the population receives some form of handout from the government (and is very protective of it) but a far smaller number actually have skin in the game. Close to 50% of the population pays no income taxes, but they provide the votes for the politicians who promise to take as much money as they can from the productive and give it – few questions asked, just votes demanded  – to the unproductive, and in many cases to the willful poor. Too many people today who do not pay into the system have a disproportionate voice in how other people’s money is spent. That is a recipe for disaster, as the politicians who are dependent on the votes of these freeloaders will continue to be elected by them and to demand an ever greater share of the pie-owner’s pie for their intemperate gluttons. Of course deadbeats should not be allowed to vote, but that is not about to change and is just symptomatic of the decline that is upon us.

Obama’s vision of America was a darker and more constricted one than that of any prior President, and his is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is an America that is in retrenchment abroad, no longer a beacon of hope and unmitigated supporter of aspirants to freedom, and an America that is a financial mendicant, no longer capable of borrowing money from the Chinese and reduced to “borrowing” from the Federal Reserve (i.e. itself) until the dollar collapses abroad and the house of cards crumples.

Any self-respecting legislator should vote down this charade. But, undoubtedly, the present “Great Compromise of 2011” will pass (and there are some valid reasons for it), and work as well as the Great Compromise of 1850 that fundamentally changed nothing and just delayed the Civil War for a few years. It arguably made things worse, as will this compromise. It deals not at all with the fundamental malady in American life today, and in its duplicity just exacerbates America’s financial state and
moral malaise.

I would love to say vote for this-or-that Republican and all will be good. In truth, both parties are wedded to a failing system that is doomed to collapse. Obama’s re-election, which will be the final nail in the coffin of American exceptionalism and greatness, is looking more likely than before. After all, he has the parasite vote locked up; he only needs a few more to put himself over the top.