Andanh.com

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington, D.C., should be the proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., to expand education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It's awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don't deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board. Who wouldn't support an effort to pay for college for GIs who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

Well, you might be surprised. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Reinvigorating the GI Bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original GI Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran's education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation.

There is a poignant significance to the passing of Mildred Loving at a time when a biracial senator leads the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Their stories are connected by time, skin color and a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Mildred and Richard Loving had been married only five weeks in 1958 when the county sheriff burst into their bedroom with two deputies.

The authorities shined flashlights in the Lovings' eyes and a menacing voice demanded, "Who is this woman you're sleeping with?"

When Richard pointed to their marriage certificate on a wall, the sheriff responded, "That's no good here."

Now or soon, a government "stimulus check" will be deposited in your bank account or placed in your mailbox. You may initially cheer, but sooner or later you will realize this is just one more step in the weakening of the American dollar and, in fact, represents more debt that must be repaid someday, probably by your children and grandchildren.

Presumably, your only responsibility is to rush out and spend the money, in order to stimulate a lagging economy. And, sure, $600 per adult will help pay the inflated prices you are encountering at the gas pump and grocery counter, but for only a very short time.

While the checks, which will total $130 billion, will be U.S. government checks, they should be signed by a member of the Saud family of Saudi Arabia, or by someone in China, because that's where the money is coming from, and whence it will return. The return mechanisms are simple, and explain in part the weakening of the American dollar.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a chart showing how much the price a barrel of oil has increased in euros and in dollars. For those of us without degrees in economics, the newspaper explained, "since 2003 the dollar price of oil has climbed far more rapidly than the euro price -- 273 percent in dollars, compared to 146 percent in euros," much of it in the second half of last year.

It further explained that "had the dollar merely retained the same purchasing price as the euro, today's price of oil would be below $70 a barrel." Devaluation of the dollar does have consequences.

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I've had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today, it's this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper -- that we're just not that strong anymore. We're borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our forces are pinned down in Baghdad, and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.

The Asian values of our parents' generation -- work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means -- have given way to subprime values: "You can have the American dream -- a house -- with no money down and no payments for two years."

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York City's Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In JFK's waiting lounge, we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore's ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children's play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, as if we had just flown from "The Flintstones" to "The Jetsons."

How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it's because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world's best talent -- including Americans.

I am all for a post-racial, nonpolarized society, but Barack Obama has yet to detail how that would work and on which issues he is willing to move toward the center from positions any reasonable observer would have to describe as far-left, even radical.

On "Fox News Sunday," Chris Wallace tried to get Obama to say where he might find common ground with Republicans: "Can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line and say, 'You know what? Republicans have a better idea here.' " Obama offered regulation and charter schools, not exactly hot-button issues.

Moving away from his vote against banning partial-birth abortion, as other Democrats have done, would have been a good hot-button issue on which he might have compromised. But abortion is the unholy grail of the left, and no Democrat can get the presidential nomination unless he buys the entire abortion package.

Obama has the right attitude, as in, "My goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done." That's admirable, so let's examine a few of the things Obama says he would like to do.

On the war, Obama said on Fox, "I will listen to Gen. (David) Petraeus, given the experience that he's accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say." Admirable. But in testimony last September before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Obama is a member, Petraeus said, "I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort." The day after Petraeus' testimony, Obama called for the United States to "immediately begin to remove our combat troops from Iraq." Which is it -- immediate removal of troops? Or heeding Petraeus and his long-term approach for bringing stability to Iraq?