I’ve spent several days during the past two weeks in my district at Fort Hood, visiting soldiers and family members who were injured or lost loved ones during the tragic shooting on Nov. 5.
 
And as far as I’m concerned, this was an enemy attack on American troops on American soil. As one soldier who was shot six times told me, victims were sought out because they were in their Army uniforms.
 
That being said, it’s only appropriate that these soldiers, who were in fact standing in line to get processed to go into war zones, should be entitled to all the benefits we have established to honor those wounded or killed in combat.
 
I introduced a bill on Tuesday that would grant combatant status to those who were injured or killed during the Fort Hood attack.
 
This is about giving soldiers the benefits other soldiers are given if unfortunate enough to be killed or injured in the combat zone.
 
It should make no difference in our care for the wounded and the families of the slain whether it occurred on an Army base in Iraq, Afghanistan or Texas. Our Fort Hood casualties should receive the same benefits and recognition as other combat casualties as this was a planned terror attack on U.S. military personnel.
 
Combatant status allows military personnel to receive the Purple Heart, and civilians to receive the equivalent award, the Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom.
 
It would also guarantee that the beneficiaries of all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack would receive the maximum life insurance available, extended family housing privileges, and other benefits.
 
This bill is not about investigations or assigning blame. It’s about taking care of our troops and their families first.
 
There were events of heroism that took place — stories I hope continue to be told — and this is just one small way we can honor those who made sacrifices on that sad day.

Some suggest that it will be a political liability if Democrats don’t pass health care reform.  But maybe passing health care reform would be even worse. 

After all, If I were a Democrat in a red district that supported McCain in ’08, and I had just cast my vote for a horrendous health care bill, I might be a little worried about what will happen in 2010.  But really, I shouldn’t be.  Just ask Marjorie.

Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, that is.  She’s known as MMM in her home state of Pennsylvania, and she has been through all of this before: she voted for President Clinton’s unpopular budget in 1993, and was summarily ousted.  But her life tells an encouraging story to those who vote for massively unpopular programs: retirement can be cushy.

She may be willing to give some advice to politicians about life-after-Congress.  Life goes on after losing your seat!  Even if you make bad decisions and vote with your ridiculous party leadership, all is not lost: you can always teach at a university.  MMM is currently working as chair of the Women’s Campaign International, a group that provides advocacy training for women throughout the world. She is also a professor at the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.  Not too shabby.

Then there’s always lobbying.  Politicians make very good lobbyists—and they also make good journalists and commentators.  I mean, if you’re looking for hot air, they are it!  You could write a book too—or maybe start a new foundation.  Think tanks are hiring, I’m sure.

So go ahead—vote with Pelosi.  Retirement isn’t all that bad.

Here are some of the Democrats who voted ‘Yes’ on PelosiCare from vulnerable districts.

The litany of books on the 2008 economic crisis covers a lot of ground. There are a plethora of good books that have come out thus far (and plenty of bad ones). My reading has already taken me through some books that I find dangerous in their ideology, but also some that are remarkably astute. What I have not come across until this latest addition to the series is a book that was nearly impossible to put down. Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail put an end to that. While I have over a dozen books to complete still in this project, and am backed up more than that with books I have completed but not yet reviewed, I can safely say that no book will prove to be as much fun to read as Sorkin’s. I recommend it for any reader who has the ability to take down over 500 pages of a brilliantly-written suspense thriller.

Sorkin’s book does something that very few books written about the crisis will be able to do: It narrates a series of events with virtually no ideology or partisanship whatsoever. I can honestly say that after finishing the book I still had no idea what Sorkin believes about the TARP bill, the nature of Wall Street, the role of lawmakers in causing the collapse, the merit (or lack thereof) of the Federal Reserve’s response to the crisis, etc. Sorkin tells the story of the events leading up to, and immediately following, last September’s week from hell (the week that included the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers, the government bailout of AIG, and the emergency sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America). Intertwined with the narratives of that fateful week, Sorkin incorporates extensive biographies of the lead characters including Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner, Richard Fuld, Ken Lewis, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, and many others. By the time I was done with the book I felt like I knew the characters personally. His research is comprehensive and his list of sources unmatched. No major character in this story has come forward to deny his version of any of the major stories. Whether someone is a hopeless obsessive of these events (like me) or not, the book is wildly entertaining, completely fascinating, and extremely well-told.

I do have to interact with the events described in this book at some point, and I intend to do so in greater detail when my review series is complete. I do not accept any version of the 2008 catastrophe that either totally villainizes Henry Paulson, or totally vindicates him. My interest in this review series is ideological: I believe that the Libertarian-anarchist crowd, and even more disturbingly the Keynesian-leftist crowd, have axes to grind in their portrayal of the crisis that must not be left unaddressed. Sorkin’s book does not pose any such problems. The complex issues he addresses require an economic thinker like myself to formulate opinions, but he does so without poisoning the well. I did not complete this behemoth book with any more clarity about the propriety of TARP, the role of short sellers in the financial crisis, or the moral hazard embedded in much of Uncle Sam’s reaction to the crisis. But what I did get out of reading this is an incredible amount of color on all the aforementioned issues (and others) that I desperately needed. The proper ideological commentary on September of 2008 is coming, but in the meantime, kudos to Andrew Ross Sorkin for not attempting to provide that commentary, and instead providing me 550 pages of reading bliss.

President Obama, who nearly prostrated himself before the king of Saudi Arabia last April, has once again bowed low to a monarch -- this time to the emperor of Japan.

What to make of this obsequious body language?

After the presidential frame went perpendicular before the Saudi royal, the White House at first denied that the president had bowed. He was merely leaning over, Robert Gibbs explained, because the president was "taller than the king." That might make sense -- to anyone who had not seen the video. President Obama bent so far over that he was at eye level with the king's hips.

The president's defenders suggested that he was merely being polite, or simply following protocol. Politeness consists in treating others with respect and taking care not to hurt their feelings. But a bow, well, that's a different matter.

Last week, the president did it again, bowing from the waist before Japan's Emperor Akihito. So what might have seemed a rookie mistake is now looking deliberate.

Protocol is not the explanation. While there have been exceptions, American presidents have not traditionally bowed to royalty. Nor have American diplomats or citizens of any stripe. Kings and queens of England have visited America and been quite satisfied to receive a dignified handshake from Americans high and low. President Roosevelt famously served Great Britain's King George VI and Queen Elizabeth hot dogs at his Hyde Park home.

When it comes to body language, it's best to stick to your own culture and traditions. A too-eager attempt to ingratiate by adopting others' customs can backfire. According to one Asian expert consulted by ABC's Jake Tapper, Obama's low bow caused considerable consternation in Japan. Apparently, a proper Japanese bow under the circumstances would have been executed with hands at the sides, and a slight tilt from the waist. "The bow as he performed it did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms ...The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak-looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

President Obama makes much of his international pedigree, the latest iteration being the boast that he is the "first Pacific president" -- whatever that means. But when he stoops to royalty this way, he invites the question: How American does he feel?

Don't hyperventilate. Of course, there is no one way for Americans to think or feel. But some American attitudes are, or used to be, woven deeply into our character. Most Americans have a visceral distaste, dating back to our founding, for truckling to royalty. Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: -- And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Kings and emperors have been treated with courtesy, of course, but to bow is -- yes, I'll say it -- un-American.

Here, let the New York Times explain it. In 1994, the Times gently rebuked President Clinton for "almost" bowing to the Japanese emperor. "It wasn't a bow, exactly," the editorial chided, "(b)ut Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan. Canadians still bow to England's Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?"

President Obama's bows, coupled with his global apology tours, suggest something other than politeness. President Obama has repeatedly reminded us that he thinks we have been arrogant and high-handed in our dealings with other nations. By bowing and scraping, he intends to drop us down a peg or two. The president of the United States really did intend to show obeisance to the King of Saudi Arabia and to defer to the emperor of Japan. He appears to have done so not to flatter those nations but only to diminish his own.

From the terrific Steve Saville in his latest note to subscribers comes a tremendous discussion of the Chinese economy, and it fits well with a week-old video I've been meaning to share here.

In sum: while China is (rightly) blasting our ultra-loose monetary policy, it needs to be recalled that its economy remains quite dependent on our monetary inflation. Despite the long-term case to be made for China's future role as the world's economic engine, were we to tighten money by raising interest rates today they would arguably experience a deeper, nastier recession than we would because they are so dependent on supplying goods to the West. Commodity prices would crumble and the rout would be on-- but worse there than here.

Saville explains some of this well here:

...any analysis that attempts to paint either a bullish or a bearish picture of China's prospects should be taken with a large dose of scepticism if it relies on GDP-related ratios such as capital-spending-to-GDP and consumption-to-GDP. For example, the liberal use of GDP-related ratios is, we think, the main problem with the China-bearish report published a few weeks ago by Pivot Capital. This 10-page report contains enough good information to make it worth the read, and we certainly agree with its underlying theme (that China's economy is 'on thin ice'), but some of its arguments are weakened as a consequence of being based on flawed ratios. Additionally, the authors of the report seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it is possible for consumer spending to replace investment as the driver of economic growth. As we've discussed in the past, consumer spending can never be the DRIVER of growth because it comes at the END of a sequence that begins with saving/investing. To employ a metaphor: consumer spending is the caboose, not the engine.

The main economic problem facing China actually has nothing to do with excessive investment or insufficient consumption; it's that a lot of the investment over the years has been directed into the wrong areas by the government and by the pernicious effects of monetary inflation.

Ah, yes, malinvestment. Perma-bears on the U.S. rightly talk about monetary inflation and how it causes the misallocation of resources by distorting economic decision-making. Their problem is, they hilarious talk as though only our government is involved in the inflation business.

This eye-opening report shows that the phrase "ghost town" doesn't just mean a city which was long ago abandoned. In China, it means a sparkling, new city which has yet to be inhabited. Watch:

More on this from Saville:

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the political and monetary authorities have exerted considerable influence over resource allocation, prices, and the supplies of money and credit, leading to an unsustainable boom. It is essentially the same problem that led to the collapse of the US financial system and economy during 2007-2009, but potentially on an even grander scale.

There are many signs that China's economy is immersed in an inflation-fueled boom that will inevitably evolve into a devastating bust. Examples include the continuing splurge on new office and shopping space despite the existing high vacancy rates of many commercial real-estate developments, and the high valuations on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Now, he goes on to state he can't prove that China rests on the edge of the cliff right this second--especially using the economic data its government provides. Indeed, government-created asset bubbles can persist a lot longer than expected, which should be a warning today to those trying to short our stock market based on what they rightly perceive as deteriorating long-term economic fundamentals.

However, while China may not be a bubble ready to burst at any moment, neither is it nearly as offended by our monetary policy as it might seem. Indeed, it depends on it to a degree.

Think about it: if we installed a new Fed Chairman who tomorrow started hiking interest rates to shore up the value of the U.S. dollar, how much would you like to be a holder of one of those empty homes shown in that video?

China talks like it would like to see the return of Paul Volcker, but don't believe it.

In reality, the world is trying to slowly work itself off of the U.S. dollar standard, but it is a process which will take years and is frought with tremendous risk. The bigger question is: will the U.S. still be the leader of the global economy when that day comes?

If we follow our current policy course for the long-term, the answer will be: not a chance.

But again, that's a long way off and we still have time to make healthy policy decisions in the meantime. Shorter-term, though, ours is not the only economy blowing bubbles through its economic straw.

Bottom line: it still makes no sense to be wildly bearish on the U.S. and staunchly bullish on China. If our latest asset bubble pops, theirs will, too.

The world leaders who bashed, trashed, and – what hurt most – mourned American influence at the recent Tel Aviv President’s Conference were matter of fact about America’s declining prestige and power. Obama’s many bows to transnational order serve to underscore their pronouncements of fallen - and still falling – respect for American institutions.

Hearing national leaders and high officials from Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia, Ukraine, and even France urge a new age of global consensus, global governance, global regime, global order – and, yes, global oligarchy -- over American-style democracy was an intended repudiation of the principles behind American exceptionalism.

China’s Minister of Information cited bullying by western powers as an obstacle to problem solving and the President of Croatia declared neo-liberal capitalism to be obsolete. Much relief was expressed over the end of American “my way or the highway” arrogance.

Obama was credited with pushing the “reset button” while being recognized as part of the transnational trend. This is a natural result of his penchant to apologize to any country for American errors during just about any historical time period. Obama rarely misses an opportunity to characterize America as an undistinguished player on the global team. Just Saturday as Obama deeply bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan, he gave an arrival speech endorsing multilateral organizations and saying that the days of US disengagement were gone. Yet Obama’s disfavored disengagement was code for past protection of US interests and free market principles as pre-conditions to energy agreements.

American UN Ambassador, Susan Rice appeared at the conference to praise the UN’s ability to “galvanize actions toward a safer world, conflict resolutions, and strong institutions.” She condemned attempts to “impose democracy by force” – whatever all of that means. Her showcase platitude was: “trampled fields of war can shelter seeds of peace.” The speech was void of purpose and direction as it revealed an American administration unmoored from western traditions and historical bearing.

During a discussion of America’s “withdrawal” from the world scene, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Itamar Rabinovich lamented the “post-heroic” world society and credited America with being a rare country still willing to “dispatch soldiers to die for a principled purpose.” He hoped that even an economically disabled America would still play a leadership role, even if alone.

All agreed that daunting issues loom with Iranian nuclear designs, Middle East tensions, national sovereignty concerns, and what these notables called “demography,” also known as Muslim immigration and birth rates in democratic countries. The expectation that another layer of global committee solutions were the answer to these complex challenges was astonishing. Leadership that has failed on a national level is expected to succeed by virtue of corporate effort. This all begs the obvious question as to how a transcendent government body is expected to succeed where the EU and UN have failed. Worse, there is no recognition of important grounding in consensual government, individual liberty, and the rule of law.

One clear voice of reason was former president of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar. He spoke unflinchingly in favor of free markets and free trade. He actually dared to admonish those who slavishly followed public opinion and advocated facing decisions with firmness. This kind of resolve stood in stark contrast to the muddled sense of confusion, moral equivalence, and cowardly group-think.

Obama will undoubtedly continue to bow and apologize. The world will refuse to admit how much it misses the clarity and courage of a Ronald Reagan who had the audacity to call for a wall to fall. Reagan stood tall and inspired all who loved freedom to join him. That is leadership.