We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

Seniors, congratulations on living to a ripe old age. You worked hard all your life. Now, you are retired and enjoying your “Golden Years.” But, beware, your Golden Years may become tarnished by the “Mortality Index.”

Never heard of the MI? You will. It is another unintended consequence of Obamacare, like higher insurance premiums, fewer doctors and lower quality healthcare for the 80% of us that already had medical insurance before the advent of Obamacare.

In a nutshell, the MI is a measurement of a person’s likelihood of dying within a certain period of time based on various factors. The index ascribes points to various factors, such as age, gender, physical condition, other chronic illnesses, etc. If the resultant number is too high, some government or medical provider bureaucrat, not a medical professional, not you, may decide that treatment for what ails you is not practical. Therefore, treatment would not be covered. For most people, no insurance coverage means no treatment. In essence, they are deciding that one person’s life is worth more than another’s. That’s right. If two people need the same procedure and person A is, say, 50 years old and in good physical condition, and person B, for example, is 80, overweight and a diabetic, it could be “Syonara” for person B.

If this sounds like a plot for a Stephen King novel, you should know that the MI is already in use, although not for the above purpose. Doctors can use it to measure a patient’s health risk and advise him or her accordingly. In addition, I believe insurance companies are using a version of it to decide whether or not to issue a person a life insurance policy and, if so, to calculate the premiums.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

As we all know, health care is expensive and getting more expensive every day. In addition, there is a finite amount of money and resources. The population is aging, and people are living longer. Elderly people use a disproportionate share of health care resources. Most experts predict that there will be fewer doctors as the medical profession becomes less attractive for various reasons (which merits a separate blog). A large majority of doctors will soon be employees of health care providers rather than proprietors, thus losing some of their independence. If you combine all these factors the future of healthcare, in general, and for the elderly, in particular looks bleak.

Higher premiums, fewer doctors, lower quality care, and now the death panel. Anybody still think Obamacare was a good idea? Thank you Mr. Obama and Justice Roberts.

The more I see of the Obama Presidency, the more I view it as a wasted opportunity. Regardless of what one may think of his political views, President Obama is very popular personally. All the polls have shown this consistently. He is glib, likeable, personable, a superb orator, and a great “rags to riches” success story. With all these positive attributes Mr. Obama has had and still does have a rare opportunity to unite various disparate groups of Americans and achieve greatness. Instead, he has done exactly the opposite He and his policies have been extremely divisive and have led us down the road toward economic and social disaster.

His wealth redistribution and nanny state policies and refusal or inability to compromise and forge coalitions with those who hold differing views have steadfastedly turned Democrats against Republicans, liberals against conservatives, poor against rich, minorities against whites, and women against men. To be sure, some or all of these animosities have always been present to a degree, but I do not recall another period in my lifetime when they have all been as extreme as they are now.

I could give many examples of this, but I will cite only one: the Sequestor. As I wrote yesterday, this was President Obama’s idea in the first place. Now that it has been turned around against him, rather than promulgating spending cuts in a judicious manner, he doing his best to cast blame on the GOP for it and make the sequestration as painful as possible to the American people. Want examples? (1) Last week he gave several “chicken little” speeches in which he delineated the dire consequences of sequestration, none of which has come to pass. In these speeches, he conveniently forgot to denote that sequestration was his much balleyhooed idea in the first place. (2) His Director of Homeland Security has reported, as a direct consequence of sequestration, the release of thousands of illegal aliens from ICE detention centers. These people had been detained because they are dangerous, and now if any of them commits another crime, guess who Mr. Obama will blame. (3) The D of HS also reported massive airport delays, whereas there have not been any. (4) Perhaps most outrageous of all, the White House cancelled all tours to save money. In reality, these tours are give by VOLUNTEERS, so this was also a sham. The only effect was to inconvenience thousands of Americans who were planning to tour the White House on their vacation. Reminds me of Chevy Chase and “Walley World.”

Why is Mr. Obama doing this? I believe he feels that if he can tarnish the GOP with this issue the Dems can win the House in the 2014 elections. In the meantime, the welfare of the country is secondary.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

President Obama’s refusal or inability to compromise and bring people together will doom his legacy. As we know, Presidents view their legacy quite seriously. Most of them spend their entire second term building it. Typically, they move toward the middle and try to unify the people.

With the passage of time, historians, and Americans in general, often view presidencies very differently than they were viewed at the time. For example, most historians rank Presidents Lincoln and Truman in the top 5, yet they were unpopular and/or controversial during their presidencies. If Mr. O stays on the present course, which I believe he will, history will judge him quite harshly and deservedly so.

Well, you have been sequestered. How does it feel? Did you even notice it? The sky did not fall. There were no massive layoffs. Social security and welfare checks did not cease. Airplanes did not fall out of the sky. Our military capacity was not decimated. Our borders were not overrun. The truth of the matter is that President “Chicken Little” and his supporters exaggerated the potential situation considerably.

At this point, a little history of sequestration would be instructive. Originally, sequestration was Mr. Obama’s idea. In July 2011 when Congress and the White House could not agree on a tax plan and spending cuts, he proposed it and pushed it as a compromise measure to avoid the US defaulting on its debt obligations. Mr. Obama lauded the measure as a solution to the impasse. He stated that it would not impact social security payments, medicare or medicaid and other programs for low income voters. Now, all of a sudden hw has changed his tune. It is safe to say that Mr. Obama was “for sequestration before he was against it.” (If this phrase sounds familiar, it should. It has often been used to mock politicians of both parties who have “flip-flopped” their positions on an issue.)

Mr. Obama is counting on Americans having a short memory. In addition, rather than demonstrating leadership, rather than applying the spending cuts in the most effieicnt and judicious manner, he has chosen to be divisive, looking to ascribe blame to the GOP.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

The amount of these spending cuts is a drop in the proverbial bucket – approximately $42 billion out of a total budget of approximately $3.5 trillion. As I said, most Americans will hardly notice. Also, we desperately need to reduce our expenses and our debt.

Mr. Obama’s vision of socialism does not work in the long run. This is not opinion; it is fact. It has not worked in any other country that has tried it (Greece, Italy, France, to name a few). They have all encountered economic and social problems as a result. Why would we think it would work here? My anticipation is that the voters will come to realize this eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Depends on your point of view. Mr. Obama claims everything is just fine. The economy is improving. Jobs are being created (6,000,000 by his count since he took office, but only 1.200,000 acording to Lou Dobbs in whom I have more confidence ). Obamacare is in place and ready to go. So what if health care costs have increased considerably with further increases to come. So what if unemplyment has risen since he took office and remains stubbornly over 7.5%. So what if household income is declining. So what if gas prices at the pump have doubled since he took office. So what if the debt is approaching $17 trillion. So what if the US is viewed around the world as weak and indecisive – four diplomats slain in Libya, North Korea testing nuclear bombs with impunity, Iran racing to develop its own nuclear capability, and Israel wondering if the US will really, really be there for it in a pinch. None of that matters. Mr. Obama and the Dems say we are on the right track. Don’t worry. This is all merely a hangover from the Bush presidency. His policies just need more time to work. This reminds me of that old Groucho Marx joke: “Are you going to believe what I tell you or what you see with your eyes?”

Mr. Obama suggested some proposals that sound good, such as raising the minimum wage to $9.00/hour, providing a quality pre-school education to every child and creating more jobs. However, historically it has been demonstrated repeatedly that raising the minimum wage does not increase jobs. If anything, it reduces jobs as employers who can’t afford to pay the higher wage reduce employees’ hours or terminate some of them, or even worse, go out of business. So, the unintended consequences of this proposal would likely adversely affect the very constituency that it is intended to help. Once again, I wonder if Mr. Obama took any history or economics courses at Harvard. Free pre-school education for every child sounds good, but we have no money to pay for it. Job creation is best left to the private sector, not the government. Over the past four years, many of Mr. Obama’s policies, such as Obamacare and raising taxes on small businesses, have served to hurt job creation rather than help it.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

In short, Mr. Obama’s view of the country, where it is and where it is going, fly in the face of the facts. It sounds illogical until one realizes that his primary objective is not to improve the economy per se, but, rather, to redistribute wealth and income. Take from the rich and give to the poor a la Robin Hood. He has no serious intention of reducing our massive debt. If, as a corollary consequence, the economy is aided, okay; if not, that is okay too. When one views his policies through that spectrum, they make perfect sense.

The State of the Union speech made it clear that we can expect more of the same over the next four years. Before criticizing Mr. Obama too harshly, remember, his actions have been consistent with his resume. He said what he was going to do if elected, and we, the people elected him…twice.

Recently, the States of California and Texas have been squabbling over an interesting situation. The State of Texas has been advertising in California denoting its business-friendly climate vis a vis California in an attempt to entice business enterprises to relocate to Texas. California has strongly objected to the tone of the advertisements and accused Texas of poaching. Both governors have been vociferously defending their respective states in the press.

On one level, one might find this situation to be amusing, akin to a family squabble, however, I think it has the potential to become quite serious. California and Texas have very little in common other than the fact that they are large states (numbers 1 and 2 in terms of population). Politically they are almost polar opposites. California is very liberal, has a big government philosophy and spends among the highest percentage of income of any state on government and social services. Texas is conservative, embraces small government and has no state income tax. I view the two states as an allegory for the national debate of nanny state and entitlements (Let the government do as much as possible.), versus capitalism, free enterprise, and risk-taking (Keep the government small and unobtrusive.).

Like many states, California is bankrupt, only they don’t know it and don’t act like it. The state continues to operate with its big government philosophy. For example, it imposes high taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals; it has the 4th highest cost of living, the 3rd highest income inequality gap, ranks 3rd to last in percentage of high school graduates and has a debilitating pension liability to public employees. In addition, due to Medi-Cal’s (state-sponsored health care provider) low reimbursement rate to doctors, one-half of them now refuse to treat Medi-Cal patients. This is indeed a formula for driving businesses and wealthy individuals out of the state.

On the other hand, Texas has a business-friendly climate, no state income tax, cheaper prices (so the lower salaries actually go further), lower unemployment, and a higher high school graduation rate. To be sure, California has great natural beauty, fantastic weather and the allure of the entertainment industry and celebrities. However, all this makes it a great place to visit, not necessarily to live in.

PREDICTION AND CONCLUSION

I believe it is simplistic to view this as merely a dispute between Califirnia and Texas. I view it as symbolic of the great divide in this country between two economic and social pholosophies – big government and entitlements versus small government, capitalism, free enterprise and reward for risk-taking. One can make political and philosophical arguments in favor of either, however, economically there is no contest. Texas is thriving, and California is bankrupt. Supporters of California who criticize Texas are missing the point. It is human nature to act in one’s own self-interest. If California-based businesses and wealthy individuals feel they will be better off economically in another state and they have the means to relocate, they will do so. If not to Texas, than it will be to another state with similar advantages. My prediction is that the country will experience a accelerated move of businesses and wealthy, mobile individuals from high-tax, big government states to low tax, small government states prospectively.

Virtually everyone I talk to is dissatisfied with the Federal government. Politics aside, in my opinion the primary problem is lack of leadership, including the President and the Congress. Any successful enterprise, business, sports teams or government requires strong, effective leadership to be successful. So, with apologoies, to “Peter, Paul and Mary,” “where have all the leaders gone?”

According to Real Clear Politics, President Obama’s average approval rating is 52%, not bad, but not great either. On the other hand, Congress’ approval rating stands at 14%. This is its lowest approval rating ever, and, if you want a laugh, it is lower than either Genghis Kahn or cockroaches. I believe these poor approval ratings can be traced, in large part, to a lack of leadership.

The position of Senate majority and minority leader is not mentioned in the Constitution. The respective roles developed gradually in the early 20th century and were officially promulgated in the 1920s. The House has elected majority and minority leaders since the 19th century. These individuals are elected by their peers at the beginning of each Congress. These leaders have significant power. For example, they schedule legislation, plan the daily agendas and serve as their respective parties’ primary spokespersons. They can also influence committee assignments. As a result, if another congressman wants to pass a bill or add an amendment, they are in a position to support it or block it, sometimes unilaterally.

With these extensive powers, one would think that these leaders could reign in the fringe elements of their respective parties and, therefore, enable Congress to operate effectively and efficiently. After all they could “persuade” a recalcitrant congressman by reminding him that they could bury his favorite bill in committee or re-assign him to a committee counting pencils. Some of the essential attributes of a leader, in any business, are the ability to accommodate, persuade and compromise. One has to convince everyone that they may not get everything they want in a bill, but they should be satisfied with what they do get.

These leaders have to not only control their own party, but also work with the leadership of the other party as well as the President, who may or may not be a political ally. That is the art of diplomacy. Spirited debate is healthy, even desirable. That is what democracy is all about, but, at the end of the day, the idea is to temper your political differences and accomplish something. That is your job. That is why you were elected. Lyndon Johnson once said that the greatest power of the Senate Majority Leader was “the power of persuasion.” Unfortunately, our modern-day leaders have been incapable of that.

Think of some of the great congressional leaders of the recent past – Robert Dole, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Byrd, Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, Hubert Numprey – to name a few. Compare them to the most recent and current leadership – Tom Delay, Nancy Pelosi, Stony Hoyer, John Behner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid. Enough said.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

The fringe elements are threatening to splinter the major political parties. Everyone is focusing on the GOP, because they lost the last Presidential election, but the Dems have their factions too. We need better leaders in the Congress. We also need better leadership from the Chief Executive. He has to realize that he is the President of ALL the people.

2013 will be a crucial year with many important issues to be decided – immigration reform, the economy, entitlements, the fiscal cliff to name a few. My sad prediction from the Federal government is more of the same. I say, surprise me. Accomplish something.

Ed Koch was the quintessential New Yorker. Opinionated, brash, out-spoken, bombastic, fast-talking, outspoken and, yes, sometimes even rude. He would tell you exactly what he thought. If you were offended, too bad. I always pictured Ed Koch as a waiter at the Carnegie Deli, lecturing a patron on the inappropriateness of her lunch order: “Lady, one does not eat pastrami on white bread with butter. If you want it that way, go home to Nebraska.” As mayor, Koch would often walk the streets of NY and bellow to anyone in earshot: “How’m I doing?!” Most of the time, the answer was, “just fine.”

Ed Koch passed away today at 2:00 am of congestive heart failure at the age of 88, and we are all diminished by his passing. Koch was born in The Bronx on December 12, 1924 but raised in Newark. After high school he served in the Army in Europe during WW II where he won two Battle Stars. Then, he earned a Bachelor’s Degree at CCNY and a law degree at NYU Law School. After a 15 year career practicing law, he entered politics. In a portent of his career, he took on the powerful Tammany Hall politico, Carmine DeSapio – and won, becoming the Democratic party leader of Greenwich Village, where he lived. He then served on the City Council and in the House of Representatives before becoming mayor in 1977.

He served three terms as mayor. It was a tumultuous time. The City was just emerging from serious financial problems. Who can forget the famous Daily News backpage headline after President Gerald Ford refused to support financial assistance to the City: “Ford to NY. Drop dead.” But, Koch rallied the people with his tough love fiscal policies, budget cuts, and forthright style. During the 1980 transit strike he urged people to cope by walking over the Brooklyn Bridge to work, and he led the march. The people loved him enough to elect him to three terms. In 1981 and 1985 he was re-elected with 75% of the vote. The media loved him because he was always good for a funny story or a snappy quote. In a city with a heavy Jewish influence, his strong, unwavering support of Israel was much appreciated. The Queensboro Bridge was renamed after him.

With his in-your-face style, Koch was Chris Christie before Chris Christie. He supported G. W. Bush over Gore in 2004, endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election bid, and had the temerity to criticize President Obama over what he (Koch) viewed as tepid support of Israel.

Koch was such a staunch New Yorker that he refused to allow the NY Giants to parade down the “Canyon of Heroes” after their Super Bowl win in 1987, saying “Let them parade in front of the oil drums in Moonachie [NJ].” In addition, he once quipped that he could “always get a better job, but New Yorkers would never get a better mayor.”

Yes, Ed Koch was one of a kind. Rest in peace Ed. We will miss you.

In celebration of Inauuration Day, I thought it would be fun to post something different, but still appropriate. Therefore, I have prepared a “Presidential Quiz.” This will enable you to test your historical acumen. The questions range from ridiculously easy, to give you a degree of confidence, to absurdly hard and obscure, to separate the real historians from the “great unwashed.” Furthermore, you young readers will see that history did not begin in 1980 as you may have thought. Here we go, and no peeking at Google! The answers appear below in the “Conclusion.”

1. How many Presidents has the US had?

a. 42
b. 43
c. 44
d. 45

2. Which President was nickamed “Old Hickory.”

a. Andrew Jackson
b. Thomas Jefferson
c. Teddy Roosevelt
d. Barack Obama

3. Who was the first President to be born in the US?

a. John Tyler
b. Andrew Jackson
c. William Henry Harrison
d. Martin Van Buren

4. Which President never actually ran for the Presidency?

a. Dwight Eisenhower
b. Thomas Jefferson
c. George Washington
d. John Adams

5. Who consummated the “Louisana Purchase?

a. George Washington
b. Thomas Jefferson
c. James Madison
d. Harry Truman

6. Who was the first president to be elected without a majority of either the popular vote or the Electoral College?

a. John Quincy Adams
b. George W. Bush
c. George H. W. Bush
d. Grover Cleveland

7. Which president added the most territory to the US during his tenure?

a. Thomas Jefferson
b. James Polk
c. Zachary Taylor
d. Theodore Roosevelt

For extra credit, name the states added.

8. Who was the first president to use “Hail to the Chief” when entering a room?

a. James Polk
b. Theodore Rosevelt
c. William Taft
d. Chester A. Arthur

9. Which president is generally credited with “winning” the “Cold War?”

a. Dwight Eisenhower
b. Ronald Reagan
c. Franklyn Roosevelt
d. Lyndon Johnson

10. Which president accidentally instituted the 7th inning stretch?

a. Theodore Roosevelt
b. Franflyn Roosevelt
c. Woodrow Wilson
d. William Taft

11. Which of the following was NOT president?

a. James Buchanan
b. Benjamin Harrison
c. Henry Clay
d. Millard Filmore

12. Who was the first president to occupy the White House?

a. George Washington
b. John Adams
c. Thomas Jefferson
d. James Madison

13. The term “ok” or “okay” was derived from which president?

a. John Tyler
b. James Monroe
c. Martin Van Buren
d. Millard Filmore

14. Which president, after winning the election, was president-elect, senator-elect and a member of the House of Representatives simultaneously before being sowrn in as president?

a. Chester A. Arthur
b. Grover Cleveland
c. James Garfield
d. Benjamin Harrison

15. It is reputed that the baby Ruth candy bar is named after the daughter of which president (not Babe Ruth)?

a. Benjamin Harrison
b. Woodrow Wilson
c. William Taft
d. Grover Cleveland

16. Who was the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms?

a. Theodore Roosevelt
b. Grover Cleveland
c. James Monroe
d. Andrew Jackson

17. Which president had a children’s toy named after him?

a. Ronald Reagan
b. Gerald Ford
c. William Taft
d. Theodore Roosevelt

18. Which president was a direct descendent of two passengers on the Mayflower?

a. George Washington
b. John Adams
c. Milliard Filmore
d. James Madison

19. Who officially named the president’s residence the “White House?”

a. Theodore Roosevelt
b. James Monroe
c. John Adams
d. William Taft

20. Under whose presidency was the Oval Office designed?

a. Theodore Roosevelt
b. William Taft
c. FDR
d. Calvin Coolidge

Extra credit: FDR was elected president four times. How many vice presidents served under him?

CONCLUSION

This quiz turned out to be harder than I originally intended. You have to be a presidential historian to get them all correct. However, I think you can be proud of yourself if you got more than half correct. On the other hand, if you got them all wrong you’re NOT smarter than a 5th grader (and maybe should repeat the 5th grade)!

Answers:

1. c; 2. a; 3. d, 4. c; 5. b; 6. a; 7. b – AZ, CA, CO, NM, NV, UT, WY; 8. a; 9. b; 10. d; 11. c; 12. b

13. c; 14. c; 15. d; 16. b; 17. d; 18. b; 19. a;; 20. b; EC – 3

Governor Cuomo and the New York legistature are to be congratulated. New York has become the first state to pass a stricter gun law in the wake of the Newtown shootings. Moreover, this was accomplished in a bi-partisan manner. Yes, amazingly, Republicans and Democrats worked together to find common ground to, in the words of Larry, the Cable Guy, “Get ‘er done.” Other states have been talking about it. The Feds have been talking about it. NY has done it! NY has reminded us all of what politics is supposed to be all about, which the President and Congress appear to have forgotten: COMPROMISE TO ACCOMPLISH.

To be sure, the law is not pefect. There are elements of it that displease liberals and conservatives alike. The gun control enthusiasts wanted an outright ban; the second amendment and NRA supporters view the law as a first step toward an abrogation of their constitutional right to bear arms. However, I think most people will find it to be very reasonable and will support it.

Briefly, the major elements of the law are as follows:

1. Mandates that all assualt weapons and pistols be registered with NYS.
2. Requires all gun owners to recertify gun permits every five years.
3. Strenthens penalties for possession of an illegal gun, or any gun on school grounds, during a drug sale or during commission of a felony.
4. Weapons databases will not be subject to disclosure under FOIA.
5. Mental health professionals must report patients they deem to be a threat to themselves or to others. Such patients must then surrender any guns and/or permits for guns.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Today, President Obama will announce his proposed gun legislation package. He will do it like he does most things, with much glitz and razzle dazzle. (He will be accompanied by children who, supposedly, have written to him about gun control.) I agree with most observers that the package will face a tough fight in Congress, with much debate and finger-pointing. After all, gun control, along with abortion, is probably the most emotional issue in this country. There are many diverse views that deserve to be heard and will be heard. In the end, I expect that Congress will pass some form of gun legislation, although it may not be exactly to Mr. Obama’s liking.

I hope that Mr. Obama does not become frustrated and resort to trying to accomplish his goals by Executive Order. EOs have their place. There is ample precedent for them, but Obama supporters beware. EOs can be a slippery slope. You may support his expanded use of EOs now, but this may embolden future Presidents, who may not share your political beliefs, to do likewise. I don’t know where the line is legally; probably, even constitutional legal scholars would differ. However, common sense tells one that they should not be used to bypass Congress’ constitutional powers. After all, let’s not forget, our system of government is all about “checks and balances.”

Few issues spark as much emotion in Americans as guns. The second amendment of the U. S. Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Many Americans react strongly to any attempt to chip away at this right. The right to purchase legally and maintain a handgun is one thing. The question is in this day and age is should that right extend to assualt weapons, automatic, semi-automatic, and similar destuctive weapons that can be and have been used by criminals to kill large numbers of innocent people. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers anticipated the advent of these types of weapons much less how they would be used by criminals.

Currently, there are approximately 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the U. S. That is an astronimical number when you consider that the total population is only 307 million people, including children! Furthermore, of the murders committed in the U. S. in 2010, 67% were committed with handguns. That would strongly indicate that guns contribute to violent crime. In addition, periodically we suffer through a heinous event like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Newtown. There is a hue and cry and much handwringing. The left wants to enact stiffer gun control laws, including a ban on certain types of weapons; the NRA and conservatives cite the right to bear arms and treat any action as an enfringement of the second amendment. In the end, the outrage fades away, people focus on other issues and nothing gets done.

Will this time be any different? No one knows, but the Obama administration seems committed to taking strong action. Biden’s study group is recommending, among other things, a ban on assault weapons, mandatory background checks, restrictions on gun shows, a national database of firearms and mental health programs designed to curtail mentally challenged people from acquiring guns. I don’t think any objective person would object to a ban on assault weapons. The others could have unintended consequences and could be difficult and costly to administer. The NRA and conservatives would likely resist some or all of these proposals and offer proposals of their own. (One such proposal they have put forth is the use of armed security guards in schools.)

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

Reaching a consensus will be difficult, but this is an issue that needs to be resolved. All parties must work hard to find common ground. Each side must realize that it will not get everyhthing it wants and settle for what it can get. Sounds easy and obvious, right? But, our government has not been able to operate this way in some time. One danger I foresee is that if O cannot get Congress to pass the bill he wants he may issue an Executive Order to accomplish the same thing. Given the history of this issue and the emotions it evokes, I think this is a strong, if not likely, possibility.

Presidents issue EOs all the time, but O has issued more than 1,000 EOs during his tenure as President, much more than any other previous president. Moreover, although some have dealt with routine issues, such as student loans, others have dealt with serious, controversial issues, such as immigration and abortion. Legal experts are divided over the constitutionality of some of them. In my opinion, an EO on this issue would be unwarranted and unwise. O would be viewed by most people as circumventing Congress and overreaching his authority. It would be very controversial, and its constitutionality would likely be challenged in the courts.

Rea