SCOTUS to hear Obamacare appeal

The United States Supreme Court has decided that it will hear an appeal relating to the comprehensive healthcare program passed by a Democratic congress and approved by President Obama. The healthcare program is commonly known as Obamacare, which for reasons unknown many supporters consider a pejorative term. One would think that if you are in favor of legislation and take pride in it that you would have no problem having it associated with the head of your political party.

Ever since passage of the healthcare legislation, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009 and later by both houses of Congress through some procedural back door mechanisms, the healthcare plan has been subject to criticism. And subject to lawsuits.

In addition to the perceived procedural sleight of hand that resulted in its passage, parts of the actual content of the law have been subject to criticism. And it seems that almost every month, if not more often, some new issue arises with the contents of the legislation. After all, this is the legislation that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said needed to be passed so that Congress and the people could figure out what was in it. This is apparently the political equivalent of "Shoot first, and ask questions later."

Criticism has especially been the case with regard to the law's mandate that every person must purchase an insurance policy. The requirement that each person buy an insurance policy is central to the whole idea of healthcare reform because some of the other aspects and requirements of Obamacare essentially fall apart without such a mandate.

For example, the law mandates that private insurance companies will be prohibited from denying insurance to any applicant regardless of that applicant's physical condition or pre-existing condition. Without the mandate, it was clear that healthy people and people who perceived that they were healthy would not purchase insurance until they needed. In other words, no disease, no doctor, no need for insurance; but all of a sudden disease, need a doctor, give me insurance now.

This would result in insurance companies having to pay out potentially massive coverage claims to newly covered people when those same people have not been paying into the company coffers. Thus, insurance rates would have to increase dramatically for everyone in order to cover these potential claims to come in the future. With a mandate that everyone purchase insurance, then not only would these future unhealthy persons have to take out policies and pay premiums, but all the healthy persons who remain healthy and hardly receive any benefit from insurance coverage would also have to pay in.

Without the mandate, there would be but two choices. Insurance rates would skyrocket (still a possibility) or insurance companies would go out of business. Of course, this second choice would be favored by many progressives, as it would lead to government-controlled healthcare. In fact, this was the favored choice of then-candidate Obama, who said that a single-payer system could not be immediately implemented but must be done so in steps. Obamacare is one such step.

The mandate to buy insurance has been criticized by some, including more than half the states, as unconstitutional. The claim is that never before has the federal government mandated that its citizens must enter into a private purchase agreement, must purchase something from a third party.

Those supporting the mandate have countered that states require their drivers to purchase liability insurance from third party insurance companies, and this is really the same thing. Of course, in that situation, the states are really requiring drivers to purchase liability insurance for the privilege to drive, for the license. A more apt comparison would be if the states were requiring all of its citizens to purchase a car.

In this case, there is no privilege or license that the government is granting to go with the mandate. Unless one wants to consider that the government is allowing you the privilege of living.

Critics of the mandate point out that, if the government can require everyone to but insurance, then is there anything that the government cannot require its citizens to purchase. Given the federal government's partial ownership of General Motors, perhaps the mandate to buy a car is not that farfetched.

In various lawsuits, Obamacare has been upheld and has been rejected. Therefore, with competing opinions, it is not unusual that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue. However, the Court is taking up the matter rather quickly with the anticipation of ruling on the matter prior to the November 2012 presidential election.

Now, just because the Supreme Court is going to consider the matter and promises a ruling does not mean that there will be a resolution of the Obamacare issue. The Supreme Court could rule the mandate unconstitutional; it could rule the mandate constitutional; or it could kick the issue down the road by holding that the mandate issue is premature or otherwise relying on some procedural gimmick to avoid an immediate answer.

Regardless of whatever ruling makes its way out of the Supreme Court prior to the election, Obamacare will remain an election issue. Polls indicate that many people oppose the law, and this is before much of the law has even kicked in yet as different aspects of the law are to be phased in over the next six years.

As long as opposition is strong, Obamacare will be an issue. If the Supreme Court rules that the mandate is unconstitutional, President Obama and the Democrats will be subject to criticism for overreaching and going against the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court punts the issue, Obamacare of course will remain an issue since it will remain unsettled.

But even if the President's administration and the Democrats prevail and the Supreme Court holds that the Obamacare mandate is constitutional, they will have little over which to gloat. Clearly, they will be able to exclaim to the American people that their mandate has passed the legal test. But in turn, the Republicans will be able to question what next mandate will the Democrats seek to impose on its citizens and to point out that having passed constitutional muster there is but one way to get rid of Obamacare: throw out the Democrats who support it and put in place Republicans who will promise to unwind it, including a president who will not veto the efforts of a Congress intent on giving back to citizens some measure of sovereignty over their lives.

President Obama and the Democrats might win this Supreme Court battle, but in doing so they might also lose the war.

Regards to President Dunsell!

The rich just got poorer

President Obama has proposed the imposition of a higher tax on the wealthy as a means of paying for the expenditures that he wants to make. This new tax would supposedly be imposed only on those making more than $1 million a year and is being called the "Buffett Tax."

This nickname is from billionaire Warren Buffett's recent complaint that he paid too little in taxes and that taxes therefore should be increased. Of course, Buffett ignores the tax accounting tricks that he plays in order to ensure that he pays less in taxes. For example, he takes from his company very little in salary which is taxed at a higher rate and takes most of his income in dividends or other income tricks which are taxed at a lower rate. Additionally, it is likely that he is able to take many deductions that most people are unable to take, thus lowering his taxable income.

Nevertheless, Buffett believes that the wealthy should pay more taxes. And Obama believes that everyone should pay more taxes. So, it is not surprising that they would find some common ground regarding tax increases.

What is surprising is that Obama's tax increase proposal relates to those making more than $1 million a year. Previously, the president has insisted that tax increases should be imposed on anyone making $200,000 or more or on families making $250,000 or more. He has justified these repetitive calls for higher taxes by speaking of the corporate jets and other perks held by such rich people.

Of course, if anyone knows how much a corporate jet costs or even a prop plane, let alone the maintenance costs, they would realize that families in the $250,000 income bracket or even a $500,000 income bracket are unlikely to have jets or yachts or other high-priced toys. Certainly they will have higher priced toys than the average American worker who makes significantly less. But these toys are likely to be more along the lines of larger and more expensive televisions, greater costing clothes, more expensive restaurants, larger homes, etc. than jets, yachts, or whatever toys the super-wealthy such as Mr. Buffett choose to have.

It is the president's and Democrats in general who love to play the class game. Previously, the division of classes has been at the $200,000 income level. At least now it is at a more understandable $1 million level.

Who knows, at a $1 million level, the president's plan for higher taxes might even gain some traction. If you are going to wage class warfare, you need as many people on your side as possible. And given the nature of things (in other words, tax the other guy and not me), the tax increase might gain favor among those in the $200,000 to $1 million income range. At least those who have no aspirations or anticipation of reaching a $1 million income.

So, at first glance, this appears to be a good thing. Not the tax necessarily, as that is for the economists and politicians to decide. Previous tax increase proposals have seemed to indicate relatively little in increased revenues for the government so they seemed primarily purposed to create class division or to punish the successful. Additionally, if increased tax revenue is just flushed down the toilet of unsustainable industries like the recent half billion loan to a green energy company or if increased tax revenue merely serves as an excuse for more government spending, then is there really any purpose at all?

No, what is a good thing is that it appears that the president is finally gaining some sense that the middle class, even if it is the upper middle class, is not the super-wealthy.

However, this remains to be seen. President Obama is also going to be proposing additional tax revenue measures. It will be interesting to see if those measures are also drawn at the $1 million income line or if he will revert back to his $200,000 line.

There appears some hope that he is getting it, but the proof will be in the pudding as they say.

Regards to President Dunsell.

AH

Thanks a lot, Michelle!

My daughter says, "Thanks a lot, Michelle!"

For those who may be unaware, childhood nutrition has been a major platform of first lady Michelle Obama. This platform has resulted in pictures of her planting a garden at the White House and dancing (moving it) with kids and Senator Harry Reid. It has also resulted in a running joke about the president indulging in hamburgers, fries, shakes, and other foods that he supposedly cannot get through the White House kitchen.

Every first lady has a platform of some sort. I recall that Barbara Bush's was literacy, and Laura Bush's was childhood education and women's health, and Hillary Clinton's was health care or perhaps intrusion into private lives, something like that.

Frankly, I have not given much consideration to the platforms of the various first ladies in the past, considering them something to be admired from afar but really not impacting me personally.

However, times have changed. And this time it is personal.

As part of Mrs. Obama's platform, she railroaded the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 through a Congress then completely under control of the Democratic Party. Such act was designed in part to increase the nutritional value of meals served to public school children. Clearly, this is a praiseworthy goal; and any legislation with such a goal was not likely to elicit much in the way of complaint or controversy. Passage of the act was relatively easy.

There was some slight concern at the time of its passage because it was funded by a cut in the food-stamp program. In other words, the government will use the money to pay for school kids meals by taking money away from families in need. Given the state of the economy, there reportedly are more families on food stamps that ever before. But at least some of their kids can get some of their meals at school.

My family does not get food stamps, so that aspect of the act has no personal impact on me. But the act did call for changes in the nutritional content of food served at school, including chocolate milk. Again, this seemingly would not personally impact me, as I do not attend school and my only child still in secondary school does not drink milk at school.

However, that child does drink milk at home, or did until recently. For about 15 years, in order to get her to drink milk, which by most accounts is a healthy drink with necessary vitamins and minerals (it builds strong bones, used to be the saying), we have bought chocolate milk. Not just any chocolate milk, but a specific brand manufactured by Dean Foods, a national food business.

Originally in our area, it was known as Schepps, then became Oak Farms. In other parts of the country, it was sold under other brand names since Dean Foods is a national company that over the years has bought up a bunch of regional dairy brands. It was one-percent milk so the reduced fat content was a plus. But the primary selling point was the taste, which my daughter liked. We tried other chocolate milks (also one percent), but none of them had the same taste and all were rejected. It was Schepps/Oak Farms or nothing, even if it meant going to an extra food store to purchase it if it was not sold where we were shopping.

Now Dean Foods has re-branded the milk once again, under the national Trumoo name. But more significantly, they have also reformulated it. While it still remains one percent milk, it has been changed to meet the new nutritional guidelines championed by the first lady and imposed by the legislation.

That reformulation, as one would expert, also changed the taste. So now, instead of a smooth chocolate flavor, what you have is essentially a milk that tastes like Nestle Quik. It took only a single sip for my daughter to complain about the taste and say there is no need to buy it anymore.

Checking on the internet to see if others might have similar complaints, all I found was uniform praise for the product. Of course, on further checking, I discovered that all these words of praise came with disclaimers indicating that the reviewers had been provided with the product for free, had parties funded by Dean Foods, or were compensated by Dean Foods. In other words, no unbiased reviews.

Dean Foods has indicated that it had no choice but to change its formula for chocolate milk. Selling to school programs to a major source of its business. Under the new nutritional guidelines supported by the first lady and enacted by Congress, the company was threatened with the loss of that business. So, its only choice to retain that business was the reformulation.

And certainly, it would be far less expensive for the company to manufacture a single formula of the milk for sale in both schools and stores, rather than have two formulas, one to be forced upon school kids and another that could be chosen by parents and actually consumed by kids at home.

Studies have indicated that as much as 30 percent of milk consumed by children is chocolate milk. With this new taste being forced on kids at school, that percentage may not change much, especially if the only other choices are bland plain milk and water.

But I know of at least one child that will be drinking less milk now.

Thanks a lot, Michelle!

Regards to President Dunsell.

- AH

A try for relevance

Press reports indicated that the long-awaited (?) speech by President Obama to a joint session of Congress, outlining his latest plan to turn around the economy and create jobs, will be held next Wednesday, September 7.

Purely by chance, this also happens to be the same date (and same time, again purely by chance) that challengers for the Republican presidential nomination are scheduled to hold a debate in California to be broadcast on national TV. Nothing like using the office of the president for a little political theater.

When it was pointed out to the administration that its planned speech conflicted with the previously scheduled Republican debate (something that somehow must have escaped the notice of the president's political advisers), the administration's response was that the Republican candidates were welcome to move their event. In his letter requesting to address a joint session of Congress, Obama stressed that "Washington needs to put aside politics." But apparently, what he meant was that everyone but he needs to put aside politics.

After all, Obama is going to give a speech, a rare event that has not occurred for at least a couple of days. The world needs to pay attention. Oh, and make sure that all the networks broadcast it. This time he might really say something.

One will recall that, during his recent non-political bus tour prior to his recent vacation, Obama promised that he would be setting forth a specific plan for the economy and jobs. He subsequently said that such a plan would have to wait until September. Next Wednesday's speech is apparently the time in which he will unveil the specifics of that specific plan.

Interestingly enough, the president has already indicated that he will "lay out a series of bipartisan proposals" on which Congress can take immediate action. Now, one of the problems here is that "bipartisan" means that both sides agree to the proposals. And if that is the case, if indeed both sides already agree to the proposals, then why is a speech necessary? If there truly is bipartisan agreement, then Congress should just pass the proposals into law.

More likely, however, this is once again the Obama administration needing to find itself a good dictionary. In the president's mind, bipartisan means what he wants, while partisan means anything else. Thus, the healthcare law written behind closed doors, presented for vote without debate or even reading, and passed on Christmas eve was considered bipartisan because it was what he wanted, regardless of what the majority of American people wanted.

Anyone who watches the president's speech will likely find out that it is not truly bipartisan, is probably not that specific, and will mostly consist of a rehash of programs that he has already espoused. Programs that have either failed, have been rejected, or are just waiting for members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) to get off their respective duffs and finally approve because they are just lingering, in some cases already approved by one house but languishing in the other.

But the president will read from his teleprompters and his media will no doubt speak in awe of how great his plan is, its innovation, and how nobody else could have thought of such ideas. Later, it will be pointed out quietly that each of the proposals has already been on the table for some time.

No, it is doubtful that next Wednesday's speech will provide any great enlightenment. Instead, it will appear that President Obama is continuing to play politics, even to the point of pushing aside or trying to detract from a previously scheduled event involving the other political party. Instead of being a triumphant gesture by a president seeking to rally the nation, it will appear as a sign of political pettiness.

It is a poor cry to be considered relevant by a president who is becoming increasingly irrelevant, both at home and in the world.

Regards to President Dunsell.

- AH

A lie big enough

There is a famous quote that goes as follows:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained
only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Unfortunately, it appears that many politicians as well as the media keep trying to find the "lie big enough" that the people will believe it. But instead of relying on any form of effective propaganda, they keep relying on taunts and name-calling.

So, supporters of the platform of the tea party (less government intrusion and less taxes) are demonized as terrorists or ridiculed as bumpkins. Or the favorite of all, they are equated to racists or even Nazis.

Similarly, those who refuse to fall lockstep into the mantra of "mankind is the cause of global warming, or climate change, or natural disasters, or weather, or whatever we choose to call it today" are considered fair game for criticism. The latest example comes once again from Al Gore, the champion of environmental purity, equating those who refuse to accept the theory of manmade global warming to racists.

It is clear that there are many people as well as many scientists who question the veracity and certainty of the theory of manmade global warming. If they do not dispute the theory outright, then these naysayers might point out that it remains but a hypothesis that has not been proven. Or they might fall in some middle ground where they believe that mankind does indeed contribute to global warming, but not to the degree that advocates desire. Or perhaps these so-called "racists" accept the idea of global warming, but do not agree with the precept that mankind is the sole cause of such warming or with the dire predictions of calamity to come in the near future.

If one does not accept the concept fully and completely, then he or she must be wrong. You accept the lie or you do not, end of story; there is no middle ground.

For so many years (at least since Al Gore determined it could be big business), the idea of manmade global warming has been championed by businesses hoping to capitalize on a green revolution especially with new products and new regulations forcing the public to use those products. Other champions have been found in the government seeking to use the threat of climate catastrophe as a means to further control the lives of the public as well as tap into the wallets of those businesses, for clearly no crisis real or imagined should go to waste. And then there are the scientists whose entire careers are built upon funding by government and business for research that will support the climate catastrophe claims.

And for many years, it did appear that manmade global warming and climate catastrophe might be a lie big enough. But its supporters could not shield the people from the economic and political consequences. Instead, they attempted to over-reach with talk of carbon trading and taxes and greater restrictions on the lives of people.

Then, there was evidence of manipulation of scientific research and of the destruction or loss of scientific data, as well as admissions that some data had in fact been misinterpreted. By chance, the misinterpretations always appeared to support ideas of even greater catastrophic calamity, and never less. None of these allegations and circumstances have ever been adequately explained. Instead, the supporters just continue trumpeting the same information over and over, ignoring any flaws, errors, mistakes, lost data, lack of support, lies, etc.

And now they are reduced to name-calling or, in one recent Al Gore speech, cursing.

For that is all that they are left with in order to "repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie."

That quote that started out this column? It was from Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister of Nazi Germany, who knew a little something about lies and suppression of truth.

And maybe his quote makes the title of Al Gore's infamous book and documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," a little more clear.

- AH

NATO's no-fly, no-float, no-live zone?

NATO members and the media are breathlessly awaiting the anticipated conclusion of Muammar Gaddafi's reign in Libya. Some reports have already indicated the complete collapse of his government, the defection of his guard, the capture of his sons, and perhaps his own flight to escape the rebels hailed as freedom-fighters. Other reports have indicated that such celebratory pronouncements might yet be premature.
While there are few people outside his family and inner circle and whatever supporters he might have in Libya and elsewhere (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) who would support a continuation of Gaddafi's rule, one has to wonder about the manner in which his dictatorship is being concluded.
As part of the Arab spring, which turned into Arab summer and is likely to become Arab fall and winter in some countries both Middle Eastern and elsewhere as more and more people rise up against governmental forces with which they disagree, a mostly disorganized group of protesters in the eastern parts of Libya managed to catch the attention of western nations long interested in toppling the Gaddafi regime. When Gaddafi sought to put down what at the time appeared to be a minor rebellion, western nations seized upon these circumstances to convince the United Nations to pass a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and humanitarian aid including defense of citizens.
The United States and its NATO allies quickly took out both Libya's air defense and strike capabilities. This was quickly followed by NATO's own flights to strike at Gaddafi's forces striking back against the rebel forces. Apparently, the no-fly zone only meant that Libyans could not fly; it was okay for other countries to fly at will across the country's borders.
And recently it appears that no-fly also meant no-float, as NATO forces began attacking and sinking ships reportedly carrying troops loyal to the existing Libyan government. Early reports indicated that some of such troops were actually in retreat, but later reports took a more pro-NATO stance that the troops were really repositioning themselves to continuance battling the rebels.
And what of the rebels? Well, they were no longer as disorganized as once they appeared. By now, they had been trained and instructed by NATO advisors, as well as provided with weapons to combat the government.
And what of NATO's defense of civilians? It had now become an all-out effort to lead the rebels to victory, taking the offensive against any pro-government facility with air attacks.
Thus, what theoretically began as humanitarian assistance morphed into essentially a war against Gaddafi. And what began as a rebel protest morphed into a civil war morphed into a NATO-led coalition to destroy the Libyan government.
Regardless of the current contradictory media reports, it appears clear that Gaddafi's days are numbered if not already ended. What will result in Libya and for the Libyan people remains to be seen. Unfortunately, it would not be unexpected that some other form of dictatorship takes hold to maintain order or that the current civil war turns from a war against the government to a civil war among various factions making up the rebels.
Yet, the big issue in this effort to take down Gaddafi is not what will happen, as there is apparently little concern among the major players of NATO (the United States, Britain, France, etc.) with regard to concern for the Libyan people. NATO's goal was to topple Gaddafi; and in that, it has or soon will succeed.
The big issue is what has become the role of NATO. Intended as a joint defense pact against the now non-existent Communist bloc, NATO has now become a military alliance to either impose its will upon other nations or, as it would no doubt define itself, to do the right thing.
NATO's role in toppling Muammar Gaddafi begs the long-contemplated question: Does the end justify the means? A pretext of humanitarianism and defense became an excuse to create and support a civil war.
As stated earlier, few would support Gaddafi's continued rule. And even that few would be able to find any moral justification for such support.
But if the end justifies the means in Libya, then is there any limit to where such means can be used? Is there an end or limit to NATO's and its western members' force?
--AH

Captain Perry?

Is there a little captain in him?

The president keeps us guessing

The media this week is all filled with photo ops and hoos-and-haas of President Obama's non-political bus trip through middle America. Thus far, beyond the pictures of the president eating ice cream and posing with a bunch of kids, the main thing to come out of the trip is Obama's big announcement that he is going to make a big announcement in the future.

This particular future big announcement is going to be about the economy and specifically about creating jobs. Not surprising, considering that the president's approval rating especially with regards to the handling of the economy keeps sliding further and further downhill and threatens to topple over that brink from which he likes to tell us that he pulled America back.

The president promises that this big announcement, to be broadcast in one of those telepromptered speeches of which he is so fond, will come some time in September, after Labor Day, after his upcoming vacation, and after Congress returns from its own holiday. And the announcement will include a plan for bringing the American economy out of its lengthy doldrums and for the creation of jobs.

No doubt this announcement will be different from the many speeches that the president has read in the past in which he has repeatedly pledged that job creation and economic improvement were his primary focus because after all it is the first thing he thinks about every morning. And it is such a pressing issue that is is probably the only thing he thinks about while on his many vacations and political fundraisers. Or while walking from shot to lie on the golf course. Or while hosting poetry slams and rap concerts at the White House.

Because this time, the president promises that he will present a specific plan.

Note to the president's political handlers: Get a dictionary and read the definition of specific. You might want to advise your candidate to choose a more appropriate and loosey-goosey adjective. In other words, tell him not to be too specific in describing the nature of the plan he intends to submit.

Because his previous efforts at and claims of specificity keep leaving the electorate wide-eyed, open-mouthed and with a befuddled “What?” murmured among their sighs. President Obama had a specific plan for dealing with the debt crisis, but no one could ever figure out what it was. Eventually, it appeared that his plan was primarily built upon him being allowed to incur more debt so he could keep spending.

And despite the lack of specificity, that plan appeared to work because eventually the Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling to allow more borrowing under the promise that the federal government will cut back on some future deficit spending. Not that the government will stop spending more than its revenues, only that it will stop spending as much more than its revenues than the excess spending it planned.

However, back to the specific plan for job creation to be revealed in September, there are already some signs that the specifics of the plan might not be as specific as one would hope. After all, the day after the president announced that he was going to make his September announcement, he started asking for suggestions from those he was meeting on his bus trip. Perhaps they might have some idea of something that might work that he could include in his plan?

And planned leaks from those supposedly in the know to those favored in the media, apparent trial balloons for this future announcement, indicate that there is thus far little difference in the president's specific plan to come and his non-specific plans of the past, other than an idea for the creation of a Department of Jobs that has already been lampooned and apparently discarded.

Of course, as always, raising taxes is at the top of his list because everyone knows that increased taxes creates jobs. And there are various matters languishing in Congress (including some patent reform which has passed both houses of Congress, but still awaits reconciliation because of differences between what the House passed and what the Senate passed) and three trade bills involving Columbia, South Korea, and Panama currently held up by the White House's insistence that semi-related spending measures be tacked on. Nothing new here.

One specific of the plan is likely to be an extension of the existing payroll tax cut. While undoubtedly the vast majority of working Americans will welcome such an extension (meaning a few more dollars kept in their pockets and not sent to the federal treasury), the tax cut would be an extension of an existing program. While those few extra dollars might have meant more dollars winding through the economy and thus jobs preserved, it certainly has done little so far to bolster the creation of new jobs and to increase employment.

Another specific of the plan appears to be yet another spending plan, though unlikely this time to be called a stimulus, at least by the White House and Democrats. They will have to consult a thesaurus for another term since the previous concept of stimulus appears to have lost all meaning in the apparent failure of prior plans where that adjective turned into a pejorative. This time the president is expected to call for massive amounts of spending to rebuild the infrastructure of America, roads, bridges, public buildings, etc. In other words, all those shovel-ready jobs that were not as shovel-ready as the Obama administration believed and thus were left unbuilt despite the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars in the president's first stimulus. Perhaps two years later, someone is finally ready to pick up a shovel.

Beyond these, it is really unclear what specifics that President Obama might include in his specific plan to be announced in September. Of course, such uncertainty is exactly what the White House and its political consultants are counting on. If voters knew the plan, then why would they need to bother to tune in to see the president reading from his teleprompter. Better to keep them guessing than informed.

It makes for better ratings.

How smart is Stephen Hawking?

"Did God create the universe?"

That is the question posed in the first episode of the new Curiosity documentary series recently aired by the Discovery Channel. As answered by noted scientist and atheist Stephen Hawking, the answer is “No.”

Hawking, a theoretical physicist known as much for his debilitating disease as his academic work, is considered one of the most intelligent people on the planet.

Why is his answer “No”? Apparently, just because Stephen Hawking says so. That is the only conclusion that I can draw after sitting through an hour-long television program heavy on graphics and video, but in the end light on any meaningful explanation or support.

To lesser minds such as mine, Hawking's explanation appears based upon scientific inconsistencies.

In the show, Hawking explains that one only needs three things to create a universe: matter, energy and space. However, Hawking then explains that, because Albert Einstein's famous equation regarding the theory of relativity (E = Mc²) shows that matter is but another form of energy, one only needs two things: energy and space. Yet again, later in the episode, Hawking claims that the energy of the Big Bang created space. Thus, apparently energy is the sole ingredient necessary in order to create a universe. Admittedly I am not entirely clear if this is Hawking's supposition, as it is uncertain if his reference to “space” as an ingredient for recipe to create a universe is the same as his reference to “space” as the far distances between stars and galaxies and the repository of the negative energy that he believes must have been created to offset the positive energy present at the instant of the Big Bang.

But then, it is this idea of negative energy which is the greatest evidence of Hawking's scientific inconsistencies.

Hawking states that people through their ignorance believe that results must have causes (i.e., cause and effect), while science can prove that a result can happen spontaneously without any cause at all. Therefore, for the Big Bang to happen, it was not necessary for any starter device, whether that be God or otherwise.

Yet, Hawking also postulates that as the result of the Big Bang and its massive release of energy there must therefore have also been a massive release of offsetting negative energy. Though this is never completely explained in the television episode, to an unscientific mind such as mine it would appear that this is in part based on Newton's third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

However, many if not most scientists and undoubtedly Hawking assuredly would reject any notion that Newton's laws and theories have any place in modern scientific thought. Newton's theories have been replaced by quantum theory. Yet, even if this were not the case, Hawking no doubt would have to reject Newton because of his first law: an object at rest will stay at rest unless a force acts upon it. This first law would be counter to Hawking's idea that something (even something as big as the Big Bang) could happen spontaneously without any force. After all, tracing back through time to the moment of the Big Bang, according to Hawking, would reveal an infinitesimal speck of a black hole in which all has stopped. Newton would require that some force act upon the speck. While acknowledging that there are those who believe that this force could be evidence of God, Hawking dismisses any such assertion because such a force would be counter to Hawking's idea of spontaneous creation.

In any event, according to Hawking, the Big Bang occurred without any impetus, releasing massive amounts of energy which became what we know as energy (heat, light, etc.) and matter (hydrogen gas burning with the stars and the rock, water and gases making up the planets), yet also releasing massive amounts of negative energy which Hawking says either became or resides within the “empty” reaches of outer space. And, according to Hawking, this negative energy of the Big Bang must equal and offset the positive energy of the Big Bang. No real explanation for why this is so is given (Hawking implies that television viewers are too ignorant to understand the theory), but clearly it can have nothing to do with Newton's ideas.

So, at the moment of the Big Bang, we have equal amounts of energy and negative energy. And, according to Hawking, as these would cancel each other out, we essentially have nothing. Thus, the universe was created spontaneously from nothing. Therefore, you do not need three ingredients to create a universe, or two ingredients, or one ingredient. You do not need any ingredient. The universe was thus created spontaneously out of nothing. And, in Hawking's mind, the only conclusion can be that there is no God that created the universe.

Now, as I am not a scientist neither am I a mathematician, but something seems inherently wrong in Hawking's concept of nothing. His idea is that energy and negative energy cancel each other out and thus equal nothing. But does doing the math necessarily equal reality?

Let's say I have plus-1 and minus-1. Mathematically, these cancel each other out and the equation would result in 0. So, what do I have? Nothing? No, I have plus-1 and minus-1. Of course, any mathematician or scientist would say that this example is not plausible because minus-1 does not exist in reality. It is merely a concept for subtraction.

But for a perhaps more scientific example, let's say I have one proton and one electron. The charge of one proton is equal to the charge of one electron, but their charges are opposite with the proton considered to have a positive charge and the electron a negative charge. Therefore, the charge of the proton will cancel out the charge of the electron. Does this mean that I have nothing? No, it means that I have one proton and one electron with opposite but equal charges. The mere fact that they are opposite and equal does not render them nonexistent.

But Hawking's rationale as expressed in Curiosity is that equal amounts of energy and negative energy yield a result of nothing and thus the infinitesimal speck of a black hole existing before the Big Bang is a nothing where motion, time, energy, and matter do not exist. Thus, that which existed in theory before the Big Bang did not exist at all. And then spontaneously, with a big bang, all came into being; nothing became everything. No force, no energy needed; and certainly no God.

Similarly, Hawking states that the Big Bang not only created the universe with all its matter, energy, and space, but also created time itself. For prior to the Big Bang when nothing existed but an infinitesimal speck of nothing, in that nothingness of a black hole everything had stopped; or more accurately perhaps had never started. Thus, time did not exist until the Big Bang. And if time did not exist, then there is no need for a God and thus God does not exist. The reason for such a conclusion is not explained, just stated.

However, this leads me to wonder. If time did not exist, if matter did not exist, if energy did not exist, if space did not exist, if the only thing that did exist was nothing which means that nothing existed, then what was there? What was there before time? What was there before space? What was there before the universe? What was there before the Big Bang if the Big Bang came from nothing?

Hawking has in fact been asked in at least one interview this very question. The answer he has provided is no answer at all. Instead, he dismisses the question. His response is that the question is meaningless just the same as asking what is north of the north pole. In his world, in the strict scientific world, there is no formula that will explain before the Big Bang. The immutable laws of nature that Hawking relies on all require a Big Bang, all derive from a Big Bang, and can explain nothing before a Big Bang.

And if something cannot be explained, then it must not exist. In effect, it has become nothing. Such is how Hawking can reach a conclusion that the universe was created out of and by nothing. His lack of knowledge and understanding of what could be before allows for no other conclusion.

There are two common and somewhat related idioms: a leap of faith and jumping to a conclusion. A leap of faith is a belief or trust in something incapable of being proved, while jumping to a conclusion is evaluating something without sufficient facts.

Those who believe in God are often criticized as having taken a leap of faith, holding a belief in something that cannot be proven. But are scientists such as Hawking who subscribe to atheism any different? Is not his leap of non-faith merely his jumping to a conclusion, passing judgment that there must not be a God because he lacks sufficient facts or the ability or knowledge to discern a God?

A theist may take those things which are not or cannot be known (what was there before the universe, what was there before time) as evidence, however slight, of the existence of God. In considering those same questions, a scientific atheist merely dismisses the questions as meaningless because not only are there no simple answers but there are no answers that they can derive within the confines of the complexity of their theories.

As an atheist and scientist, Hawking believes that he can explain everything, except that which cannot be explained. And if it cannot be explained, it is dismissed as nonexistent, meaningless. This is perhaps Hawking's greatest failing, the inability to realize (or admit) that he does not know.

The Discovery Channel's Curiosity asks: “Did God create the universe?” Stephen Hawking's answer is: “No, because that's what I say and what I believe, and I am smarter than you.”

But perhaps Hawking is not so smart as he believes or as we are led to believe.

 -- AH