Many Demands, Limited Resources

A Guest Editorial by Chaplain Don Zapsic, Jr., U.S. Army (Retired)

A cacophony of competing interests continually rises to vie for finite government resources in the form of funding, man-hours and material support. Whether the issue is the opioid crisis, homelessness, rising crime rates or a myriad of other pressing concerns, something has to give somewhere. The truth be told, there are many scourges upon the face of the earth that routinely degrade America’s standard of living and try as we may, only so much can be reasonably done. The perfectibility of mankind and the imminent mastery of his environment are mere myths in light of the absence of a long-awaited Utopia that has never even remotely materialized. Our beguiling problems are ever with us and when by happenstance one problem gets solved, a new crisis quickly arises to take its place. Occurrences such as emergence of a previously undiscovered disease like AIDs or unprecedented damage and loss from a chain of natural disasters quickly comes to mind.

So how does government strike a right balance in the face of countless demands and limited resources?” It is not to be found in trying to satisfy everyone as the late German poet Friedrich Holderlin warned, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.” Since heaven on earth is unattainable and a hellish existence is readily accessible through a combination of bad choices, unjustifiably expanding the size and role of government is not the answer. The most recent example of such an expansion is the Affordable Healthcare Act. Like other forms of socialism, it coercively redistributed wealth from many who could previously afford health insurance to augment failing state and federal programs designed to provide affordable and often free medical care to the poor. The income gap between working producer and unwilling-to-work-yet-able-consumer significantly narrowed under the auspices of what was deceptively marketed to be a “win-win” for everybody.
Kamagra medicines1) Kamagra Oral Jelly: Specially formulated for the cipla cialis acquisition de viagra report users who post their opinions on the web page. Because of HIFU’s manage and precision, the total risk of negative side cialis professional effects effects connected with other prostate cancer treatment options do not work. buy cheap cialis So, you have been looking for a perfect ‘scent’ object. This drug sildenafil viagra de pfizer will act as a safe guard against clotting impacts.
The expectation of reconciling society’s greatest needs to the resources they deserve is not a realistic goal. Worthy causes are by necessity competing causes as dozens, if not hundreds of considerations must be taken into account to determine who gets what and how much. Politically speaking, the more well connected and organized fund seekers are, the more likely they will succeed in grabbing a bigger piece of the funding pie. Financially speaking, government funds are limited and advocacy may yield nothing more than gaining a hearing along with a few parting conciliatory sentiments. Those who gain the lion share of sought-after-funding would do well to remember that their acquisition did not occur in a vacuum. Perhaps a worthier cause was overlooked as there may not be as much food for poverty-stricken children or shelters for the homeless on a cold-winter night.

One of the many great things about our country is its reputation for being the most generous nation on the planet. Such generosity must be protected and nurtured by respecting the property rights of others. Fleecing the golden goose is not going to produce the desired outcome necessary to sustain those most dependent. Free enterprise is by no means perfect, but is still the best economic model the world has ever known. The United States, as Holderlin implies, will never be heaven-on-earth. It can continue however to be a land of opportunity where poverty is more of a reluctant choice than a life sentence. The private sector must continue to pick up where government leaves off regarding redress of worthy causes unrequited. Perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow in striking a right balance between countless demands and limited resources is the recognition that battling poverty will always be part of the American, and the human, experience.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.