We have established thus far that the five reviewed planks of Ted Strickland's platform would most likely result in spending hikes that would in all likelihood require tax increases. In turn, these tax increases would stunt economic growth even more. Continuing with...

Plank #6

6. Stabilize health costs for government and businesses alike and advance the health of our citizens by increasing the number of Ohioans who have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare, preventing illnesses and injury and focusing on community-based services for children, families, older adults and persons with disabilities.

First, how does the government "stabilize" health costs? Absent the patience for market reforms and given the propensity of Strickland--and the rest of Ohio's politicians, for that matter--to favor government intervention, it seems that the state would have to regulate health care costs.

This sounds good in theory: make sure Joe Buckeye only pays X dollars for Y procedure. Unfortunately, the basic laws of economics tell us that price controls are a bad idea. If medical costs are held artificially low, thus distorting the market, then more people will demand medical services at the lower prices than companies are willing to provide them for (recall that doctors must make money, too, or they can't operate). Thus, even fewer people will receive needed care.

This course of action also seems likely for Strickland under the auspices of "increasing the number of Ohioans who have access to affordable...healthcare." Of course, the other orthodox government response would be to subsidize Ohioans. This, naturally, increases spending and the likelihood of tax hikes.

Thus, it is implied in this plank that Ted Strickland will increase government control over the health care industry and increase state spending, all in the name of helping people. With the extra spending and taxes that it would require and/or government control, the economy will not recover in Ohio; as a result, more people will not be able to afford health care and the government will follow suit with more spending and more control.

Instead, a wiser course would involve the following, and perhaps more, measures:

1) Ohioans could be allowed to put part of their incomes in health savings accounts, tax free. Thus, out of pocket spending on medical attention would not be taxed, as it is when we go to the doctor's office today. Likewise, the individual consumer would make better use of scarce resources (health care is not an unlimited commodity) with individual decisions.

2) Allow small businesses to band together in order to buy health insurance.

3) Require doctors to post the prices of medical procedures. The price of CT scans dropped over 75% in a few years when their costs became public.

4) Deregulate the health care market between states. Allow Ohioans to buy insurance from Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The competition would drop prices and insurance premiums in all involved states.

Market reforms have had good results in other areas--why not health care? Furthermore, countries with socialized medicine have three key problems: poor service, long lines, and lack of innovation. Why?

Well, why should a government employee care how satisfied the customers may be if it doesn't affect profits? Why would a company revolutionize a new procedure or medicine if there will be no economic payoff? I know: the answer is altruism--helping people selfishly. However, that's not human nature and we must account for the world as it is rather than what we want it to be.

Ultimately, that's what Ted Strickland's plan is all about. And because it discounts the way people are in favor of a vision of the world as he wants it to be, it will fail.

Historically, Jews have been a persecuted people, perhaps more so than most groups. Part of this persecution was due in part, as Thomas Sowell wrote in his essay "Are Jews Generic?", to their economic middle man status (salesmen, bankers, etc.).

Typically, they have also been a numeric (and cultural) minority, also. Thus, Zionism developed. The desire for a Jewish state--dubbed Jewish "nationalism" which now holds the negative overtones that academia has bestowed upon the term--seemed reasonable. If Jews were a minority persecuted by the majority in many places, then it would follow that their plight would improve if they were the majority.

After World War II, Zionism became a reality after the British withdrew from Palestine and Israel declared itself a state. Immediately, another majority--the Arabs--attempted to destroy the new nation. Since that time, this tiny plot of holy land has been embroiled in fairly consistent combat.

Eventually, Israel acquired peripheral lands that they would occupy as buffer zones, but terrorism--suicide bombers and rockets from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups--became the almost doctrinal response.

However, the "peace process" continued and Israel conceded 95% of Yasser Arafat's demands during 2000 negotiations--which imply a give and take, not dominance--but the offer was rejected. Fighting continued.

Still, Israel pulled troops out of southern Lebanon--home to the Iranian arm of Hezbollah--and Ariel Sharon began abandoning settlements in Gaza. Thus, Israel traded "land for peace."

But no peace resulted.

When Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, bombings continued, and rocket attacks commenced, Israel responded. Given their recent attempts to play the "land for peace" game, Israel has earned the right to decimate Hezbollah.

Yet Kofi Annan has called an emergency UN meeting and leaders all over the world are calling on Israel to stop the offensive. A draft French resolution would established a buffer zone in southern Lebanon that would be, in theory, free of both Israeli troops and Hezbollah. Unfortunately, the latter's propensity for using civilian areas, and even UN outposts, as barracks, offices, and fire bases would seem to put a damper on the French resolution.

The point here is that Israel is always asked to cease and concede while less stringent (or no) demands are made of its opponents. Thus, one would plausibly conclude that the game is rigged against Israel.

We in the United States are taught ad nauseam to understand the unsocial behavior of other groups and countries because of their plight. We must, they say, not pass judgment because there are good reasons (usually "poverty") behind, say, theft or poor education outcomes or violent demonstrations. Yet, no such deference is given to Israel's Jews, a group that has historically been persecuted and is currently surrounded by countries and terrorist groups that have vowed to deprive them of their very existence.

For several weeks, Ohio Democrats—and even visiting Democrats like Hillary Clinton—have quipped about Ken Blackwell’s “conflict of interest” in simultaneously running for governor and executing his duties as Secretary of State. The conflict exists because Blackwell is the state official responsible for elections, and, so the theory goes, he could cheat.

A Columbus Dispatch piece echoes new Democrat complaints that Blackwell is scurrying from his duties as Secretary of State in order to campaign. Since he began campaigning for governor, Blackwell has left his deputy to perform many of his duties for him. The Republican “deemed the move prudent” in order to provide “a level of insulation” between his political campaign and his state duties.

One would think that this move would satisfy his critics; however, such is not the case. Critics are crying out for Blackwell’s “leadership” and accusing him of “[dodging] his responsibilities.”

One might also imply an unspoken request that Blackwell resign his current seat as he runs for office—which others, such as Bob Dole, have done in the past. I would welcome such a move, but I don’t suspect Ted Strickland will field similar requests, even though he has missed a rather large percentage of votes in Congress while campaigning in the state for governor.

So, Ken Blackwell is either engaged in a dubious conflict of interest or scurrying from his duties. Which is it?

Periodically, I will compare our famed politicians' rhetoric with reality.

Rhetoric

Harry Reid from the Huffington Post online: "We need a New Direction for America... strengthening the middle-class..." as if the Bush Administration had been weakening it.

Harry Reid from US Newswire: "Republicans held the retirement security of millions of workers hostage to their desire to provide hundreds of billions in estate tax giveaways to the privileged few."

Charlie Rangel in the Washington Post via NRO: "I don’t know what the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or our foster children have done to Republicans to deserve this."

NRO: “'The Republican House just voted to slash health care for struggling families, cut college loans for middle-class kids, and take food off the tables of poor children,' the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained in TV ads during budget votes last December."

Thus, Republicans have ignored the interests of working class Americans at the expense of the rich.

Reality

DeRoy Murdock from National Review: "Heritage Foundation budget analyst Brian Riedl actually looked at social spending under Republican control. What he finds is as astonishing as it is counterintuitive: Under the mean, nasty, coldhearted Republicans, expenditures on the poor have zoomed to record levels. In 2004, 16.3 percent of the federal budget went to anti-poverty efforts. This figure never has been higher."

Murdock: "In 2001, President Bush and the GOP Congress spent $285.7 billion on 33 anti-poverty programs. By 2005, that sum had grown $111.2 billion to a total of $396.9 billion."

In other words, the GOP has done more for the poor in Democrat terms than Democrats have.

Also, this supports my idea put forth in the very first posting on this blog. Please go back and read it.

Continuing with analysis of Ted Strickland's Turnaround Ohio plan...

Plank #5 

5. Provide all Ohioans the opportunities to attain skills for high-quality jobs.

In a dynamic economy such as ours, it is true that countless Ohioans need "skills for high-quality jobs." Unfortunately, there are two major flaws with this, naturally vague, plank.

First and foremost, the jobs need to be here first, and the overall theme of Turnaround Ohio is of government intervention: more spending and more meddling. More government here will only interfere and dissuade business development. In order to woo business to the state, taxes and regulations need to be reduced. Ohio's current tax and regulatory burdens are extremely high while the economy ranks extremely low, relative to the rest of the nation. The state must change this condition, not add to it.

Second, the verb "provide" necessarily includes more government spending, which was one of the chief problems the state government had during the lowly Taft years. Every other plank implies increased spending, too, which will require tax hikes--the wrong answer in this economic environment.

Furthermore, if the state presumably "provides" for schooling ("opportunities to attain skills") in the current environment, the beneficiaries will only leave the state. Too many Ohioans become residents of Illinois, New York, and other states after graduating with undergraduate and graduate degrees from Ohio colleges and universities as it stands. Minus the economic environment for job growth, the state would simply be subsidizing Ohio's demise. In other words, the best and the brightest will take Ohio's money and run to another state.

Ted Strickland has correctly diagnosed one of the state's key problems, but again, his solution will not only not help, it will make the situation worse.

As for Ted Strickland's Turnaround Ohio, plan...

Plank #4

4. Focus on Ohio's strengths by building on Ohio's regional economies and globally competitive industries, spurring small and mid-size business growth, supporting emerging entrepreneurs in our cities, fostering innovation and unleashing the potential of Ohio's great universities and investing in next generation energy as a job source as well as a resource.

Here I sense the probability that words such as “supporting” and “fostering” translate to “state spending.” Rather than getting government involved with business, the proven method for building business is to leave them alone. Strickland’s plan is naturally ambiguous—no wise politician would give every detail of his plan in July—it seems to lack the market reforms (deregulation and reduction of tax burden) that “foster” and “support” economic growth.

Specifically, government intervention is implied when Strickland's plan calls for "building on Ohio's regional economies and globally competitive industries." In order to be competitive, both regionally and globally, the government should leave businesses alone. The government can help "build" these economies and industries not only by refraining from extra mingling, but by actively taking another step back--i.e. deregulate and cut taxes, neither of which is uttered as part of Strickland's vague plan.

Likewise, small and mid-size businesses will grow when left alone. The same is true if the state wants to "[support] emerging entrepreneurs" or "[foster] innovation." The state can do small things like prorating or even waving state fees for smaller enterprises, but too much intervention will hinder growth (taxes, regulations) and distort the market (subsidizing businesses that have not passed the market test).

Again, absent specific proposals, which I don't suspect we will hear from the Strickland campaign (so to avoid thorough scrutiny) until the last month or so of the campaign, it's difficult to see how the choice of verbs here, all of which imply more state meddling, will help the state. While "[focusing] on Ohio's strengths," none of the implied actions will allow those strengths to flourish.

Ted Strickland will release his tax returns while Ken Blackwell will not, the Dayton Daily News reported today. "Blackwell--who has extensive investments--will keep his returns private..." A Strickland campaign spokesman said, "There are probably very few Ohioans who are millionaires like Ken Blackwell." Accordingly, Strickland is to be praised, presumably, for living "paycheck to paycheck."

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. Blackwell has more than Strickland; therefore, Strickland is better. Blackwell doesn't want to release his private tax returns but Strickland does; therefore, Strickland is more "transparent."

Still, according to DDN, "Both men already file [sic] public financial disclosure statements required of officeholders."

The attempt here is to redirect the debate from Blackwell's ideas. Rather than arguing the merits of Ken Blackwell's policy proposals, the Strickland campaign has opted for a political class envy ploy. That Ken Blackwell invests does not make him evil or bad, but wise and prudent.

At this point, Ted Strickland has unveiled few policy proposals, aside from the ambiguous Turnaround Ohio plan that calls for more government spending and oversight. The advantage for Strickland is that his ideas cannot be scrutinized because...no one knows what they are.

Blackwell, on the other hand, has been forthcoming with his ideas because he feels confident that they will stand up to scrutiny.

Thus, we have no debate. One cannot say with any degree of certainty that Mr. Strickland 1) has no ideas or 2) is afraid to spread them, but at this point, we still do not have any idea as to what a Governor Strickland would do to improve our state, aside from vague overtures.

In essence, Ted Strickland is running against someone rather than for his own ideas. That Ken Blackwell holds more wealth than Ted Strickland is irrelevant. The insinuation is that he is like us, the down-trodden middle class, strictly because his opponent has more money. On the contrary, Congressmen make better than $100,000 annually, which is considerably more than the average working American.

Ted Strickland should cease this course and instead present his own ideas while debating his opponent's ideas. Only then will Ohioans know their two choices. As right now, the choices are: Ken Blackwell who wants to do A, B, and C, and Ted Strickland who wants to do...something.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, an Ohio state GOP operative distributed an email smearing Democrat gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland and his wife for things such as being gay. Such charges are not true, at all, the Dispatch reported.

The responsible individual is said to be Gary Lankford, the "social conservative coordinator."

Charges such as these appear to be untrue and appeal to the lowest of lows in politics. If the accusations made against Mr. Lankford are true, he has brought embarassment to the groups he represents, be they the GOP or social conservatives.

In an election that should be dominated by ideas, Lankford has dropped to the level of political stunts that are, frankly, childish. If he did indeed make such charges, then he should resign--and if he does not resign, the GOP should fire him.

Ted Strickland's governing ideas can be easily discredited without resorting to what amounts to elementary name-calling.

Plank #3 of Ted Strickland's Turnaround Ohio platform is as equally flawed as the first two.

Plank #3:

3. Dramatically increase the number of students in Ohio's colleges and universities by broadening access and ensuring that those who attend succeed and graduate with a degree that counts.

Two implications exist from this statement: that the government will increase spending on furthering education and standards at public institutions will be reduced.

In the first case, there are positives and negatives. Subsidizing the college studies of Ohioans will certainly allow students who might otherwise not attend a university to do so; however, this will inevitably involve increased state spending, which will require, as stated previously, tax hikes or reallocation of funds. And as also stated previously, the former is more likely--the economic implications need not be repeated.

Furthermore, government education subsidies have another drawback. They are prone to abuse when students switch majors multiple times or do not take their studies seriously, ultimately resulting in unnecessary funding in order to pay for additional terms of study. Strickland's plan could be improved if it had limitations that provided incentives for students to take their studies seriously and to complete them on time.

In the second case, there are mostly negatives. By "ensuring that those wo attend succeed and graduate" implies not increased rigor but lowered standards, not only in admissions but in the classroom.

Two downfalls exist with this option: First, if I as a student know that I can get into such and such state university regardless of what I do at such and such high school, then I will probably not put forth maximum effort in high school. The result: I won’t be prepared to study at the university level and will likely drop out without that degree. Second, when I am at the university, my professors will be inclined to give me pass on my studies, and in some cases I may receive the credits without learning the material adequately. The result: I may have a degree without any knowledge.

Like plank #2, this plank is more of the same--old ideas that haven't paid dividends in the past. While there are positives, the negatives outnumber them and make this part of the plan equally dubious. Cutting rigor and adding subsidies will not make more productive Ohioans--it will only create the appearance of qualified graduates whose skills have not been honed or even tapped.

This would be worse than leaving them to their own devices altogether, where those who truly seek to improve themselves would do so sincerely.

Continuing the review of the seven planks of Ted Strickland's Turnaround Ohio plan, let us look at the second.

Plank #2:
 
2. Create schools that work for every child by giving teachers the tools and technology they need to stimulate creative, problem-solving students to power Ohio's 21st century economy.

This idea is nothing new. In fact, it is old and has not worked in the past. The tell-all solution to all problems seems to be money, money, and more money. Rarely are there actual changes, and rarely are those changes directed at anyone but teachers.

Money: Consider that Washington D.C. spends more money per student than almost any district in the nation and is among the worst. Likewise, per-pupil spending has doubled over the past twenty years and results have held steady or declined. So it seems that money is not the problem.  

Instead of subsidizing the producer, the government would be better served subsidizing the learner. The public schools’ “purpose is to provide education’; however, our public schools are exempt from market forces that would allow dissatisfied parents and students to move on and take their “business” elsewhere. Thus, subsidizing the student—allowing the dollars allocated for each student to follow the student—would force poorly-performing schools to produce more so than simply giving the schools a few more computers.

The Changing Agent: "[G]iving teachers the tools and technology they need" is not what they need. Nor do they need more certifications and more education. Most recent government reforms of education involve, narrowly, money (already mentioned) and more demands on teachers--even under Republican administrations.

Rather than simply placing responsibility on the teacher--as does No Child Left Behind, with which I agree in terms of motivation--the government would be better served to spread the wealth. Nowhere in any of these plans are parents and the bureaucracy asked to do anything. That students' "creative, problem-solving" skills need stimulated is less a matter of teacher ineptitude than it is the cultures of the students. If education (reading, etc.) is not valued at home, both in terms of parental modeling and statements, then it will not be valued at school.

Likewise, the bureaucracies have only grown in scope and stature, and they do little more than control schools and place more demands on them. Instead, bureaucracies should be slashed in size and scope, allowing not only more freedom for schools to meet their specific students' needs, but also to free up the, so we hear, much needed funding that is wasted paying administrators high five-figure and six-figure salaries.

Implicit in Strickland's plan are two things: more spending and more government oversight. Unfortunately, these have been the same two "planks." if you will, of both Democrat and Republican politicos' plans for many years, and the results have not followed. Still, people like Ted Strickland continue to run for office on stale ideas that do little or nothing to actually alter the system while dismissing out of hand innovative ideas that, when tried, have shown proved results (vouchers, for example).

Like plank #1, this plan gives the citizens a pass and places all the responsibility on the teachers--a government entity, thus more government control and power--and requires more spending. This, in turn, will inevitably require more government funding, which will require higher taxes or reallocation of funds. The latter is more likely; thus, the realm of education will have an effect on economic growth, which Ohio needs very badly.

In essence, Ted Strickland's education plan will not only do little to improve public schools, but will also have a detrimental effect in other areas.

Ted Strickland, Ohio gubernatorial candidate, finally release a plan yesterday, albeit ambiguous, called "Turnaround Ohio." In the next seven entries, I will explain why the seven "planks" will not only not turn Ohio around, but turn Ohio backward.

Plank #1:

1. Provide every child a fair start through access to high-quality early care and education.

A “fair start” is more than providing “high-quality early care and education.”

Here, it seems that Strickland is inadvertently proposing more state spending on head start-like programs and the like. Such programs have had good results in some states, but they have two major drawbacks. 

First, they require more government spending during a time when the state is running budget deficits. Two solutions to balance the budget usually exist: cut spending or raise taxes. New program require more spending, which would require cutting other spending or raising taxes. The former is unlikely, given the history of government; thus, the latter seems almost certain under Ted Strickland, and this would further hamper economic growth.

Second, "high-quality early care" programs like head start remove the responsibility of pre-schooling education (how to count, ABCs, etc.) from the family. Ultimately, the family would know that it—or in far too many cases, she only—does not have to worry about reading to the child. In the long run, the parent surrenders responsibility to the government. While the student may benefit NOW, the family will weaken LATER.

Thus, this ambiguous plank seems to have two results: bigger, more intrusive government and the assumption of parental responsibility. Given Ohio's tax and regulatory burdens (that have stunted economic growth) and the astronomical out-of-wedlock birthrates, plank #1 would produce more problems than solutions.

Both Ken Blackwell and Ted Strickland, the Republican and Democrat candidates for governor of Ohio, respectively, often speak in religious terms. A Columbus Dispatch piece on the two men details their faiths.

The piece begins: "Ohio’s next governor will be a devout Christian who readily quotes Scripture and is compelled by faith to help the less fortunate." At least the Dispatch concedes that Ken Blackwell does care about other people in spite of his conservatism, but it's not clear whether or not this statement applies to Ted Strickland.

I have read countless pieces on Strickland's status as an ordained minister and his scripture quotations. On the other hand, I have read that he does not attend church regularly--in fact, I recall reading somewhere that he has not attended church in quite some time.

In short, Strickland cannot have it both ways. I won't fault him for his political shrewdness, as he is trying to win an election, but for me it does not work.

Ted Strickland is, by speaking of faith, appealing to Christian voters. When claiming that he has not attended church in a while, he is telling the secularist left that he is not an evangelical nut.

Moreover, Strickland has accused Blackwell of wanting to impose his beliefs on the public while maintaining that Strickland himself would govern using Biblical principles.

The point here is that one should not get credit for statements when behavior is not consistent with those statements.

---------------------------------------------

Other election notes: A Dispatch poll from this past weekend has Strickland leading Blackwell 47% to 27%. While the poll may be disheartening to Blackwell supporters and encouraging to Strickland supporters, it is July and early polls are often not indicative of the final result.

Nic Robertson of CNN was granted a tour of Hezbollah sites in Beirut. One of the main points of the segment was that civilians lived in the area and that it was not an armory.

So goes the complaints of world leaders and protesters in the US. Israel, we are told, is going into civilian areas for no good reason. On the contrary, anyone who knows the Islamic terrorist mentatity will know that there is good reason.

American troops in Iraq face an enemy similar to that which Israeli faces. The terrorists intentionally use civilian areas, mosques, and other areas for weapons storage, housing, and offices precisely because they are protected.

Terrorists know that we in the West make great efforts to avoid civilian casualties and unnecessary damage. As a result, we have said that we won't bomb certain areas, that we won't go into mosques, etc.

For example, Coalition Forces in Iraq at some point allegedly cut a deal with local clerics regarding a pair of mosques in a religiously-significant city. The deal stipulated that the Coalition would stay out of the mosques; consequently, they were used as weapons depots and safe houses.

In essence, our forces tied their own hands.

Herein lies the western protests of Israel's actions in civilian areas. Certainly the Israelis are not as constrained as we are in the west, but they refused to adopt a self-imposed liability. Critics of the Israelis completely ignore that Hezbollah does not play by the same rules as, well, anyone else.

If Israel is to truly defeat Hezbollah--and if our forces are to truly defeat the terrorists in Iraq--then they must go into their safe havens. If not, then the enemy will be granted a tactical and strategic advantage.

The point of war is to win, not to gain the accolades for restraint.

CBS News ran an interesting but overhyped interview with National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. In the interview, Mr. Buckley criticized President Bush for the "absence of effective conservative ideology."

Listening to Matt Drudge on the radio, I heard a caller take Mr. Buckley to task, and Mr. Drudge criticize CBS and Mr. Buckley, for his comments. Still, one must consider what Buckley said.

Basically, Mr. Buckley believes Mr. Bush has not governed conservatively, citing Iraq and domestic spending as his two gripes. Otherwise, "He's practically always with me," Buckley said of the president.

This brings me back to something I wrote recently--my assertion that the left has won a victory in American politics by dictating the terms of the debate. In that piece I wrote that in many cases we no longer argue between the conservative and liberal policy ideas, but rather what degree of liberalism will result.

Here, Mr. Buckley's remarks support this assertion. He is right to say that the president has not governed conservatively, because he has not. Consider, for example, that liberals now lambaste the Republican president for spending too much; however, also consider that, despite liberal cries to the contrary, federal control and spending on education has more than doubled on Mr. Bush's watch.

The president is certainly more conservative than his two opponents (Gore and Kerry), but he is not conservative in the American conservative--Reagan or Buckley--sense. Thus, Mr. Buckley is correct, indeed. If one is truly a conservative, meaning that one generally wants less government intervention at home and abroad, then one must agree with Mr. Buckley.

In the mean time, observe our political debates. Observe that the "conservative" administration is pursuing policies that liberal Democrats have pursued--prescription drug plan, increased federal control and spending on education, increased spending on AIDS in Africa, support for affirmative action, and regulation of political speech.

The poles have, indeed, moved left.

Senator John Kerry was in Michigan assisting Jennifer Granholm's reelection bid. Referring to the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict, Kerry boasted, "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened."

This was typical Kerry "overspeak"--pure baseless hyperbole. Such overstatements are common from such ideologues. Take, for instance, Kerry's vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, who claimed that people like Christopher Reeve would walk again if Kerry became president.

Why do ideologues speak in such extravagant terms? In this case, the interventionist mentality of Kerry and Co. governs how they look at themselves and their place in the world. In claiming that President Bush is responsible for a conflict whose roots date back well before he thought running for governor, let alone president, Kerry is implicitly saying that it was the responsibility of the United States to prevent such a conflict.

Certainly, the US intervenes abroad (i.e. Iraq), but support for varying interventions depends on party loyalty. Still, Kerry's ideology is governed by the assumption that he and his ideological brothers are the elect--the only ones able to moves the pieces of society into peace and harmony.

Thus, Kerry would have himself, as president, assume responsibility over the Israel-Hezbollah conflict just as he would have his administration assume responsibility for such things as: our health care; our economy; our tax dollars.

Here, responsibility inevitably translates into: power. Ironic, coming from one who criticizes the presiding administration for power grabs.