Do You Trust Government?

Do you trust the government? The Pew Research Center last week released the results of a poll on trust in government. Only 22% of those polled said they can trust government “almost always or most of the time.” Only 19% say they are “basically content” with the federal government. My initial reaction to the results of the poll was surprise that even as many as 20% of our fellow citizens believe they can trust government. After thinking about it, however, my surprise turned to understanding when it occurred to me that virtually all of those who trust government are, in all likelihood, totally or largely dependent on government for their livelihood. Unfortunately, government has become the new “sugar daddy” for far too many of our fellow citizens. It’s logical that those who are dependent upon government are more likely to trust and support it.

The flip side of the poll is that approximately 80% of American citizens are unhappy with government. Favorable ratings for both political parties have reached record lows. Only 25% express a favorable opinion of Congress, which is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. Favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have fallen from 59% to 38% over the past year and now stand at their lowest point in Pew Research surveys. Opinions about the Republican Party are no better, with only 37% viewing it favorably.

The press release issued by the Pew Research Center said, “As in the past, poor performance is the most persistent criticism of the federal government. Fully 74% think that the federal government does only a fair or poor job of running its programs.” The press release also reported that 43% of the people think government has a negative effect on daily life. At a time when the government is expanding its powers almost every day, approximately half of the American people now say they want a smaller government with fewer services.

My own distrust of government and politicians—both Republicans and Democrats—has grown substantially during the last year. Almost every day, I find more reasons to distrust government and the politicians who run it. Let me give you six examples from the last week that fortify my increasing distrust of government.

(1) Economic experts in the Health and Human Services Department issued a report this week stating the new health care law will increase rather than decrease overall national health care spending. When the new law was signed last month, President Obama said it would “bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.” This week’s report from Medicare’s Office of Actuary expressed a different view. The report projected that health care spending under the new law will increase by a total of $311 billion compared with the amounts that otherwise would have been spent from 2010 to 2019. According to the report, the increase in spending will be even worse if Congress fails to implement the cuts in Medicare assumed under the health care bill. But if the Medicare cuts are implemented, the report says many hospitals and nursing homes will driven into the red, which would jeopardize access to care for seniors. Richard S. Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, issued the report. According to The New York Times, Mr. Foster was “lionized” by the Democrats as a “paragon of integrity” when he questioned cost estimates by the Bush administration. Many of the same people who previously praised Mr. Foster are now attempting to discredit him. After this week’s report was issued, the White House continued to insist the new law will reduce health care spending. Who do you trust?

(2) There is considerable speculation that Congress, after the November elections, will impose a new value-added tax on top of the current income tax to pay for the federal government’s unprecedented spending splurge. A value-added tax is a tax on the price of goods at each stage of production. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has insisted that a value-added tax is not under consideration. In an interview last week, however, President Obama indicated a value-added tax is still on the table for consideration. Last week, the U.S. Senate, with strong support from Democrats, adopted a non-binding resolution denouncing a value-added tax. The Democrats, of course, don’t want any discussions of a massive new tax program until after the November elections. Is a value-added tax in our future? Who do you trust?

(3) Congress is currently considering comprehensive new legislation designed to give the federal government substantially more control over financial institutions and financial transactions. Many Republicans are opposed to the legislation. The Democrats are attempting to discredit the Republicans by saying they are simply trying to protect their wealthy friends on Wall Street. President Obama, our post-partisan President, lambasted the Republicans for opposing the legislation and said they had decided to do so after meeting with Wall Street bankers. According to news reports, however, leading Democrats, including President Obama, have also had numerous meetings with Wall Street bankers, a fact the Democrats fail to mention when they are criticizing the Republicans for doing the same thing. Moreover, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Democrats have received substantially more political contributions from the securities and investment industry than Republicans. Eight of the top ten Senate recipients of political donations from Wall Street are Democrats. In an article published today, The New York Times pointed out that the major legislative proposals being considered by Congress favor the large banks on Wall Street over smaller institutions. Is this just a coincidence? Who do you trust?

(4) In September of 2008, then Presidential candidate Barak Obama said, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” I read this week about a report issued by the Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. According to Investor’s Business Daily, the report “notes that, since January 2009, Congress and the president have enacted $670 billion in tax increases. That’s $2,100 for each person in America. At least 14 of those tax hikes break Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Roughly $316 billion of the tax hikes—14 increases in all—hit middle-class families.” President Obama continues to say he will not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. Who do you trust?

(5) The Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a report stating that senior members of the agency’s staff were spending hours surfing pornographic Web sites while the nation’s financial system was collapsing. According to the report, one senior attorney spent up to eight hours a day looking and downloading pornography on government-issued computers. An SEC accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a single month from visiting pornographic Web sites, but he still managed to collect “very graphic” material on his government computer by bypassing the SEC’s internal filter. Who was managing these SEC employees while they were spending their time looking at pornography? Do you trust you are getting your money’s worth from the more than 2,000,000 federal government employees—excluding employees of the Post Office—who are being paid with your taxpayer dollars?

(6) Finally, the economy affects all of us all the time. Politicians are quick to take credit when the economy is improving and to cast blame on others when it’s not. Although there are encouraging signs the economy is beginning to improve, I continue to read reports almost every day about the high rate of unemployment. The unemployment rate continues to hover around 10% and would be much higher if the statistic included people who have given up looking for work. Within days after President Obama’s inauguration, Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus plan based on President Obama’s prediction that the unemployment rate would reach 9% without the stimulus plan but would stay at 8% or below if the stimulus plan were adopted. For most of the last year, the unemployment rate has been higher than President Obama said it would be without the stimulus plan. Because the economy is now showing signs of improvement, the Democrats are boasting that the stimulus plan worked. The Republicans claim it was a terrible failure and waste of money. Who to you believe, and who do you trust?

Do you trust the government? The poll conducted by the Pew Research Center didn’t ask why people don’t trust the government. The question didn’t need to be asked. If you want to know why people don’t trust the government, all you have to do is read the newspaper. Examples are everywhere.

We Like It

Dusty Winslow lives in the Bitterroot Valley of Western Montana. He has a blog entitled “View of the Bitterroot”. Dusty writes articles for his blog about the people who live in the Bitterroot Valley. I have been reading Dusty’s articles for several months. Each article begins with an amusing story about one of Dusty’s friends and ends on a serious note. I have enjoyed reading Dusty’s articles and thought you might like to know about them.

Dusty’s blog can be found at www.dustywinslow.com. Dusty will include you on his distribution list if you send him an e-mail at dustywinslow@att.net.

Dusty gave me permission to publish his latest article, which is entitled “We Like It”. Here is what Dusty had to say:

So me and Joan met my pal Hippie Dave and his girlfriend Nancy down at O’Brian’s Bar and Grill for an early supper. We sat at a 4-top and ordered drinks and burgers.

We were enjoying our refreshing cold beverages and anticipating our hot, juicy beef on a bun, when the front door swung open and in walked Stinky Pete. He was soaking wet and had that wild look in his eyes like somebody who’d been zapped with a joy buzzer one too many times. Whatever was bothering him, he no longer thought that it was funny.

He ordered a Jagermeister and a beer and, without waiting for an invitation, pulled a chair up to our table. Joan and Nancy slid over to make room. He threw back his shot, took a swig of beer, and sat there glaring, a puddle of water forming at his feet.

Since nobody else was going to do it, I asked, “What’s up, Stinky?”

He’d been out guiding, and the weather hadn’t cooperated. It rained, it snowed, the wind blew, the sun came out, and then it really rained. He complained about how his clients couldn’t cast, they couldn’t set the hook, and they didn’t know how to fight a fish if they hooked one. I quietly suggested that those were probably the reasons why they hired a guide, but when Stinky gave me his death stare, I didn’t push the issue.

Then, when he was putting his raft on the trailer, one of the clients got enthusiastic about helping him and wound up dropping an oar in the river. As he was hurrying downstream after it, Stinky slipped and fell in the water, getting even wetter than he already was.

“All in all, I’d have to say that it was a pretty crappy day fishing,” Stinky said as he finished up his tale of misery and woe.

Dave said, “Dude, you’re missing the point. You get paid to fish.”

That got me to thinking.

There are some folks who take for granted the blessings that have been bestowed upon them. Take for instance the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, Barak Obama.

At the end of the 2-day nuclear security summit in Washington, D.C. last week, he was asked about how the summit would affect the efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. In his response, the President said, “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them.”

Whether we like it or not? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I’ve got news for you pal…we like it. Obviously, Obama has no regard for the determined American spirit and the sacrifice that made us a dominant military superpower. It also seems like he’d rather not remain in that position.

Many brave men and women fought and died so that the President could represent our interests and the interests of freedom around the globe. He would do well to honor their memory.

The role that the United States has played in the world by virtue of its dominant status is that of defender of the defenseless, liberator of the oppressed, and enemy of tyrants. Throughout our country’s brief history, we have confronted evil and righted injustice. These are not things to apologize for or to be ashamed of.

What would Obama prefer? That we were a second rate country whose opinion carried no weight with other leaders. Well, that would certainly make his job easier now wouldn’t it? But that’s not the job he was elected to do.

I didn’t vote for him, but I still require that he act like the leader of the free world. Not like some American Idol contestant who can’t sing but still grovels at Simon Cowell’s feet while desperately begging for some sign of approval.

To quote the movie Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The President of the United States can act as a force of good because the office and the country command respect.

While the President’s approval rating here in America has dropped to a new low, he still remains very popular in Europe. I figure he’d have been better off as president of France.

Obama may feel that groveling and apologizing will get him what he wants on the international stage, but I say, “Dude, you’re missing the point. You get paid to lead and, thanks to those who’ve gone before you, you’ve got the tools to do it.”

I don’t know, I guess I think too hard about these things.

The Real Risk-Takers

Thomas Friedman is a well-respected columnist for The New York Times. Although I do not always agree with him, I always enjoy reading his columns because they are well written and thought provoking. I like Mr. Friedman because he is a free thinker. He does not automatically take a liberal or a conservative position on every issue.

In his latest column, which was published this week, Mr. Friedman argues the country will not be able to create new jobs without having more people who are willing to take risks. He also points out most new jobs are created by small businesses. Mr. Friedman quotes Robert Litan, who directs research for the Kauffman Foundation, who said, “Between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were 5 years old or less. That is about 40 million jobs. That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.”

Mr. Friedman wrote, “Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers.” He added, “If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing General Motors nor funding more road construction will do it. We need to create a big bushel of new companies—fast. We’ve got to get more Americans working again for their own dignity—and to generate the rising incomes and wealth we need to pay for existing entitlements, as well as all the new investments we’ll need to make.”

After defining the problem, Mr. Friedman offers his solutions. He wrote there are two ways to develop the risk-takers who will create the new jobs we need. The first way is to improve our schools. The second is to recruit talented immigrants. Mr. Friedman thinks we should do both.

Although Mr. Friedman is much smarter than I am, I think he is overlooking an important and necessary piece of the puzzle. In my opinion, we won’t be able to create new companies, with a corresponding increase in new jobs, simply by graduating more smart students from our educational institutions, or by importing more smart immigrants, or by doing both. These smart students and smart immigrants won’t be able to start new companies without money. New companies require capital, and they must be adequately capitalized to be successful. If the smart students and smart immigrants don’t have their own money, they will need to attract the investors who will provide the funds the companies need to be successful.

Based on his column, Mr. Friedman apparently thinks the real “risk-takers” are the smart people who will come up with the ideas to form the new companies that will create the new jobs. In my opinion, the real risk-takers are the investors who are needed to provide the capital without which the new companies will never be formed. The investor who puts up money is the one who is taking the most risk when a new company is being formed. Of course, an entrepreneur who resigns a position with a good company to go to work for a start-up is also taking some risk, but it’s a different type of risk. If the entrepreneur is well qualified and has good marketable skills, he will find another job if the new start-up company is not successful. The investor, on the other hand, will have lost his investment if the company is not successful.

There are plenty of smart people today who have good ideas for new companies, but they can’t find the investors to back them. Many investors are sitting on the sidelines because the government has reduced their incentives to take risks and has created uncertainty over the rules and regulations to which businesses will be subject in the future. At a time when the country needs investors who are willing to take risks, the government has announced new and increased taxes on investment income. In other words, the government wants investors to take risks by making investments, but the government also plans to take a larger share of the return earned by those investors who are lucky enough to make money on their investments. In addition, the government is constantly increasing and changing the rules and regulations to which businesses are subject. All of this is reducing the incentives for risk taking.

Mr. Friedman’s column contains some good ideas, but it doesn’t go far enough. Smart people alone will not be able to create new companies and new jobs. Someone has to make investments in the companies in order for them to be successful. Unfortunately, our existing government policies are doing more to discourage investment than to promote it.

There is an old saying that always has been and always will be true. If you want more of something, you tax it less. If you want less of something, you tax it more. Stated differently, if you want more investment, you tax it less. If you want less investment, you tax it more. To me, it’s common sense. Our elected leaders have either forgotten or don’t believe this simple rule. All of us are paying the price for the lack of common sense on the part of our elected leaders.

A Big Stinking Mess

President Obama promised to transform America. He’s doing it. He promised to redistribute the nation’s wealth. He’s doing it. Like him or not, you have to give President Obama credit for perseverance. He is accomplishing his goals one step at a time.

The federal government now has or soon will have almost complete control over virtually all aspects of our economy, including health care, education, energy, and banking, not to mention the government’s ownership of a major insurance company, two major automobile manufacturers, and two companies that provide most of the financing for home mortgages. The government this week is taking over the student-loan market.

The printing presses are constantly humming with new laws and regulations affecting everyone. Environmentalists should be going nuts because of all the trees that are being killed to print all of the new laws and regulations.

If you want a large and strong federal government with extensive powers, these are indeed happy days for you. If you believe in small government and personal responsibility, these are very dark days, and they are only getting darker. Liberty and freedom and fast becoming words that no longer describe the United States of America.

Whether or not you are a believer in the massive changes currently taking place in this country, you should be alarmed, disgusted and outraged by the process through which these changes are being implemented and by the amount of debt being incurred to pay for the changes. The process can only be described as a big stinking mess. The debt being incurred will impose an enormous burden on our children and grandchildren.

Congress this week finally passed President Obama’s health care legislation, which was quickly signed into law by a jubilant President. Legislation that will restructure approximately one-sixth of the country’s economy was passed by a purely partisan vote in both Houses of Congress. Members of the Democratic Party cast all of the votes for the health care legislation. All Republicans and even some Democrats voted against it. The President who promised to bring bipartisanship to Washington, D.C. has become one of the most partisan Presidents in history.

The Democrats who voted for the health care legislation did so after weeks of intimidation, bribes, arm-twisting, threats, job offers, special perks, backroom deals, and misrepresentations regarding the scope, content, and cost of the legislation. We will never know all of the promises and secret deals that were made by President Obama and party leaders to secure the needed votes for the legislation. Based on news reports, however, it is apparent that many of the Democrats who voted for the legislation did so after receiving something of value to them in exchange for their vote. I hope we all agree this is not the way any legislation, especially legislation of this magnitude, should be enacted. The smell from this big stinking mess may never go away.

Although the legislation is now law, the big stinking mess continues. At least 14 states have filed lawsuits claiming the legislation is unconstitutional. In my opinion, the legislation violates the language and spirit of our Constitution, but I think it’s highly unlikely the Supreme Court will so rule. Republicans will attempt to have the legislation repealed if they are successful in regaining control of Congress. Again, in my opinion, it’s highly unlikely they will be successful in doing so. Entitlement programs never go away. They only get expanded.

The health care legislation will inevitably cost far more than advertised. In passing the legislation, the Democrats relied on cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office, however, based its cost estimates on assumptions provided by the Democrats. The estimates are only as good as the assumptions. Most observers believe the assumptions are unrealistic. In addition, anyone who has tried to project revenues and expenses for a business knows that projections covering the next three years—let alone the next ten years—are totally unreliable. Finally, in order to reduce the estimated ten-year cost of the legislation, the Democrats decided the new taxes and fees would begin immediately but most of the costs would be deferred for four years. In other words, it will take ten years of revenue to pay for six years of spending. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what happens in the next ten-year period.

Almost every action taken by Congress has unintended consequences. I believe the unintended consequences from the health care legislation will be massive and far-reaching. I had lunch last week with some old friends with whom I used to work. Three of them said they or their spouses had doctors who were no longer accepting Medicare patients because of the low Medicare reimbursement rates. We can now expect to see more doctors who refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients unless the government finds a way to force them to do so against their will. Doctor shortages are inevitable, which will mean longer wait times to see a doctor. Although President Obama adamantly claims the legislation will not result in health care rationing, I think he is wrong. In fact, we already have rationing. You won’t have to look very far to find someone who has been denied a medical test by Medicare or by an insurance company. We will see more rationing in future years as the pressure to control costs intensifies. It’s inevitable.

Some of the unintended consequences will be hard to track. The new taxes imposed by the legislation will be passed on to consumers. The higher costs incurred by employers will result in lower wages or fewer jobs or both. The new taxes on medical devices will result in higher costs, which will be passed along to consumers, or less medical innovation, or both.

The Republicans believe the Democrats committed political suicide by passing the health care legislation. I disagree. Although the legislation is highly unpopular now, the Democrats are much better salesmen than their Republican counterparts, and it will take many years for all of the problems resulting from the legislation to be apparent. In the meantime, the Democrats will be constantly reminding us of the good features of the legislation, and there are some. Moreover, history has demonstrated time and again that the American voters have short memories. It’s far too early to write off the Democrats or to assume the Republicans will be able to benefit from the big stinking mess caused by the Democrats. When it’s time to cast our ballots in the next election, most of us will realize the Republicans created their own stinking mess when they were in power, and there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t do so again if they regained control of Congress.

For the time being, all we can do is sit back and observe the massive changes taking place in our country. Is this “change you can believe in”? I think it’s a big stinking mess!

The Importance of Credibility

You cannot be successful in any endeavor unless you have credibility. Credibility and trust go hand-in-hand. Both must be earned. If you lose your credibility, you will not be trusted. If you lose your credibility, it is extremely difficult to regain it and to re-earn the trust you have lost.

You cannot be successful as a parent unless you have credibility with your children. You can easily lose credibility with a child simply by not fulfilling your promises or failing to follow through on your threats. If you threaten punishment if a child does not obey you, then you must follow through on your threat or it will become extremely difficult to discipline the child in the future.

A teenager who gets in trouble loses credibility. A teenager who has lost credibility becomes an immediate suspect when a problem develops in the teenager’s school or neighborhood, even if the teenager is completely innocent and had nothing to do with the problem.

An effective witness in a civil or criminal trial must have credibility. The prior conduct of a witness can be used to destroy his or her credibility. A witness who makes inconsistent statements loses his or her credibility. A witness without credibility will not be trusted or believed.

The chief executive officer of a company cannot be successful without having credibility with the board of directors and the company’s employees. The CEO will lose credibility with the board of directors if the company fails to achieve the results promised by the CEO. The CEO will lose credibility with the employees if he doesn’t communicate with them effectively and treat them with respect.

The United Nations is not an effective organization because it has no credibility. Rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea ignore the U.N. because it doesn’t stand behind its threats. It is virtually impossible to get the members of the U.N.’s Security Council to agree to impose sanctions on rogue nations. Even when sanctions are imposed, however, they are generally weak and are not enforced. Rogue nations don’t worry about the U.N. because it has lost its credibility.

In politics, each political party is constantly trying to destroy the credibility of the opposition party. Politicians spend more time and energy working to destroy the credibility of their opponents than they do promoting their own ideas and proposals. Unfortunately, attacks on the other party’s credibility seem to work. In my opinion, the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 because the Republicans lost credibility with the voters—not because the voters preferred the agenda of the Democrats. If the Democrats lose control of Congress this year, it will be because they have lost credibility with the voters—not because the voters prefer the Republicans.

The biggest problem facing President Obama today is that he has lost his credibility. In my opinion, President Obama has lost his credibility primarily because of his own decisions and his own conduct. In short, he has self-destructed. The loss of President Obama’s credibility has been accompanied by a loss of trust, which is making it very difficult for him to control the members of his own party and to lead the nation effectively.

President Obama started losing his credibility during his first month in office by acting in a highly partisan manner after promising to bring a new era of bipartisanship and transparency to Washington, D.C. Within days after his inauguration, President Obama allowed the Democrats in Congress to develop a pork-filled economic stimulus plan behind closed doors and without any significant involvement on the part of the Republicans. The primary purpose of the stimulus plan supposedly was to save and create jobs. President Obama sold the stimulus plan by predicting the unemployment rate would reach 9% without the stimulus plan but would stay at 8% or below if the stimulus plan were adopted. Congress agreed to spend $787 billion of borrowed money based on these predictions. The unemployment rate today is close to 10%, which is well above the rate predicted by President Obama if the stimulus bill had not passed. President Obama has lost credibility because of his off-the-mark predictions about the rate of unemployment if the stimulus plan passed or did not pass.

President Obama also has lost credibility by the way in which he has pursued his health care reform proposals. In my opinion, he has made two major mistakes. First, from the outset, the President who promised bipartisanship completely shut the Republicans out of the process and repeatedly said the Republicans had no ideas even though the Republican proposals were well documented. Two weeks ago, President Obama finally organized a summit for the purpose of hearing the Republican ideas, but he has made only modest changes in his health care plan based on the ideas expressed at the summit. It is clear the summit did not represent a sincere effort to achieve a bipartisan solution to the health care problems facing the nation. The summit was too little too late. Second, President Obama has repeatedly made promises about his health care proposals that are completely unrealistic and unbelievable. For example, he has promised to expand health care coverage and reduce costs at the same time. He has promised he can cut $500 billion out of the cost of Medicare without adversely affecting the medical coverage provided to Medicare beneficiaries. He has promised his health care legislation won’t increase the federal deficit even though every major government entitlement program has cost more than originally predicted and has substantially added to the deficit.

The strategies followed by President Obama to obtain support for his health care legislation have severely damaged his credibility. In order to obtain 60 votes for the legislation in the U.S. Senate, President Obama had to buy the votes of members of his own party, including Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who voted for the legislation in exchange for the now famous “Cornhusker Kickback” and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who voted “yes” in exchange for the so-called “Louisiana Purchase.” He also bought the support of the unions by providing union members with special tax benefits not available to others.

As a result of President Obama’s loss of credibility, almost everything he does now draws suspicion. He is like the teenager who is always suspected of wrongdoing because of his troubled past. Let’s take a look at a recent example of how President Obama’s loss of credibility is affecting the public’s reaction to his decisions. Last week, President Obama nominated Scott Matheson, a lawyer and law professor, to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit. It turns out Scott Matheson is the brother of Utah Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson, who previously voted against President Obama’s health care legislation. President Obama is now trying to convince Rep. Matheson to change his mind and support the health care legislation. The White House claims there is no relationship between President Obama’s efforts to obtain the support of Rep. Matheson and President Obama’s appointment of Rep. Matheson’s brother to a lifetime position as a federal judge. If President Obama still had credibility, most of us would probably believe him when he says he is not trying to buy Rep. Matheson’s vote. As a result of his loss of credibility, however, it’s impossible not to be suspicious that President Obama is still buying votes.

Can President Obama regain his lost credibility? I believe he can, but I don’t believe he will. I’m not sure he cares. To regain his lost credibility, President Obama will have to change the way he operates. He will have to do the things he promised to do when he was running for President. He has been in office for more than a year now, and it’s fairly obvious—at least to me—that he isn’t even trying to be the bipartisan President he promised to be. Instead, he is a highly partisan President who plays bare-knuckle, hard-nosed politics and is willing to do whatever is necessary to accomplish his objectives.

President Obama may accomplish some of his objectives, but in the long run I don’t think he can be successful without credibility. At this point, he doesn’t have it.

Villain of the Week

Politicians and the news media have many things in common. One common characteristic is that both need a villain to attack on a regular basis. Politicians have discovered the best way to deflect attention away from their own problems is to attack someone else. The strategy, which seems to work, is to make a lot of noise about how evil someone else is with the hope no one will notice the things you are doing that may be even worse. When politicians identify a villain, the news media will quickly jump on board, especially if they favor the politicians who are on the attack and disagree with the political philosophy of the targeted villain.

In some cases, the same person serves as the villain for an extended period of time. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove served as the targeted villains during the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. The Democrats and their supporters in the news media pounded Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rove almost every day regardless of what they said or did. The Republicans also have their villains. Today’s top villains for the Republicans are President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans don’t have many friends in the mainstream news media, but there are many conservative political commentators who assist the Republicans in attacking their villains.

In some cases, an individual who otherwise does not have a high public profile becomes a villain for a short period of time because of his or her position on a particular issue. In almost all cases, the truth is irrelevant when a villain is being attacked. The villain’s positions are almost always misrepresented or taken out of context. Regrettably, the news media cannot be relied upon to set the record straight. Instead, the news media frequently becomes a co-conspirator in the political assassination of the villain.

A new villain appeared on the scene this week. The villain of the week is Jim Bunning, a Republican member of the United States Senate from my home state of Kentucky.

What did Sen. Bunning do to deserve becoming this week’s villain? In order to examine his conduct, it is first necessary to go back a few weeks in time. In February, Congress raised the federal government’s debt limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion in order to allow the government to keep borrowing money it doesn’t have. At the same time, in order to demonstrate its fiscal responsibility, Congress adopted “pay-as-you-go” rules requiring that any increases in spending be offset by cuts in spending in other areas of the federal budget. President Obama signed the legislation adopted by Congress, including the “pay-as-you-go” rules. After signing the legislation, President Obama said, “In a perfect world, Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly, to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today—or our children tomorrow. But this isn’t a perfect world. This is Washington. And while in theory there is bipartisan agreement on moving on balanced budgets, in practice, this responsibility for the future is often overwhelmed by the politics of the moment. It falls prey to the pressure of special interests, to the pull of local concerns, and to a reality familiar to every single American—the fact that it is a lot easier to spend a dollar than save one. That is why this rule is necessary.”

Less than a month after adopting the “pay-as-you-go” rules, a bill was introduced in Congress to extend unemployment benefits that were scheduled to expire. The cost of extending the unemployment benefits was $10 billion. In its wisdom, Congress decided to exempt the cost of the bill from the recently enacted “pay-as-you-go” rules. Sen. Bunning then appeared on the scene as the villain of the week.

Sen. Bunning had the audacity to suggest Congress should follow its own rules. He said he favored the extension of unemployment benefits, but he argued the cost of the extension should be offset by cuts in spending in other areas of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Sen. Bunning suggested Congress use unspent money from last year’s stimulus legislation to pay for the extension, but Democrats objected. He also suggested other cost reductions, but Democrats objected. Sen. Bunning asked, “If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything?”

The reaction to Sen. Bunning’s position was as predictable as the sunrise each day. In order to deflect attention from their out-of-control spending habits, the Democrats have unmercifully attacked Sen. Bunning throughout the week. He has been called evil, immoral, heartless, and even worse. He has been accused of wanting to force people out of their homes and of wanting to deny food to the needy. A friend from Kentucky referred to Sen. Bunning as a “nut case” and said he made her ashamed to be from Kentucky.

The news media jumped on board in support of the Democrats who were attacking Sen. Bunning. The television news media painted Sen. Bunning as a monster and ran stories focusing on the victims of delayed spending. ABC News Reporter Jon Karl confronted Sen. Bunning as he entered an elevator and spoke into the camera, “We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americans, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years.” The cameras then turned to Ms. Wood, who talked about her struggles and added, “I don’t know what I’ll do.” ABC World News Anchor Diane Sawyer said Sen. Bunning was denying “life support for the unemployed.”

The heat from the Democrats and the news media became so intense that even conservative Republicans had to distance themselves from Sen. Bunning. Finally, Sen. Bunning retreated under pressure from members of his own party, who had lost the public relations battle on this emotional issue.

Once again, the strategy of finding and attacking a villain worked. Emotion always wins out over logic. Because of all the noise, no one seemed to notice that Sen. Bunning was in favor of the bill extending unemployment benefits. He only wanted Congress to follow its own rules and to offset the cost of extending the unemployment benefits by cutting spending in other areas. He wanted Congress to do the same thing all of us have to do with our family budgets and our business budgets.

I was watching television this week when U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont made an emotional speech during which he said Sen. Bunning was immoral. Sen. Sanders, however, apparently doesn’t think it’s immoral for the federal government to continue borrowing money that will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. To Sen. Sanders and many others, there is nothing immoral about imposing a crushing debt load on future generations. Morality and immorality obviously mean different things to different people.

After Sen. Bunning gave up the fight, Congress passed the bill extending unemployment benefits at a cost of $10 billion with no offsetting cost reductions. In a twist of irony, President Obama hosted a reception at the White House the next day to celebrate the passage of the “pay-as-you-go” legislation. Sen. Bunning, the villain of the week, was not invited to the reception. It’s business as usual in Washington, D.C.

Finding the Truth

It is very difficult to find the truth and to know when you have found it. There are at least two sides to every story and to every issue. If you get all of your information from only one source, it’s highly likely you aren’t getting both sides of the story. Almost all sources of information are biased. The party reporting on or discussing an issue generally presents the facts supporting his or her bias while ignoring or distorting the facts supporting the other side of the issue. The only possible way to understand any issue is to read and listen to multiple sources with different biases.

Let’s consider an example of how difficult it is to find the truth about an issue. During the last several weeks, politicians and members of the news media have been excoriating the health insurance industry over recently announced premium increases. Wellpoint, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, recently announced premium increases of up to 39% for individual health insurance plans in California. Other insurers have filed applications with state regulators seeking to raise premiums for individual health insurance plans by 56% in Michigan, 24% in Connecticut, 23% in Maine, 20% in Oregon, and 16% in Rhode Island.

These premium increases, on the surface, seem outrageous. During the last several years, the premiums for my individual health insurance policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia have increased between 20% and 25% each year. I’m not a happy camper when I get the notice each year showing the increased premium for the following year. My reaction, based strictly on emotion, is always that the premium increases are unjustified.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has launched a vicious attack against the insurance companies for their recently announced premium increases. In a column published this week by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Secretary Sebelius wrote, “It’s outrageous that insurance companies are reaping huge profits on the backs of working families who are already struggling to make ends meet. It’s also all too familiar.”

Predictably, Secretary Sebelius argues the premium increases prove the need for President Obama’s health insurance reform. She says, “The longer we go without reform, the more families in Georgia and across the country will open up letters saying things like ‘your premiums are going up 30 percent….’”

The New York Times has jumped on the bandwagon with those criticizing the premium increases. In an editorial published on February 19, the Times wrote, “Clients were understandably furious when Anthem Blue Cross, the largest for-profit health insurer in California, announced huge rate increases for people who buy their own insurance: an average increase of 25 percent, and a 35 percent to 39 percent rise for a quarter of the purchasers. The move also provided a textbook example of why the nation badly needs comprehensive health care reforms.”

Both Secretary Sebelius and the Times referred to the outrageous profits recently reported by WellPoint, the parent company of Anthem Blue Cross in California. Secretary Sebelius wrote, “Even more infuriating for the people receiving these letters, this increase didn’t happen because Wellpoint had fallen on hard times. WellPoint recently announced more than $2.7 billion in profits from the most recent quarter alone.” The Times referred to the “substantial profits” reported by the nation’s largest health insurers last year.

If you listened only to Secretary Sebelius and The New York Times, it would be clear to you the health insurers are greedy and are taking advantage of their customers. But, as in other matters, there is another side to the story. In an editorial published on February 18, The Wall Street Journal said, “Wellpoint’s rate hikes are the direct result of the Golden State’s insurance regulations—the kind that Democrats want to impose on all 50 states. Under federal Cobra rules, the unemployed are allowed to keep their job-related health benefits for 18 to 36 months. California then goes further and bars Anthem from dropping these customers even after they have exhausted Cobra. California also caps what Anthem can charge these post-Cobra customers. Most other states direct these customers to high-risk pools that are partly subsidized, but California requires the individual market to absorb the customers and their costs.”

Wellpoint also offers health insurance plans in Maine and Connecticut and is seeking large premium increases in both of those states. A spokesman for Wellpoint was quoted as saying the increases are due to rising medical costs and sicker customer pools. As people lose their jobs, those who are younger and healthier are more likely to go without insurance, which results in a larger percentage of policyholders who are sick and elderly. In Michigan, state law requires insurers to accept all individual applicants. As a result, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a non-profit insurer, had losses of $280 million in the individual market in Michigan. The insurance companies say they need the premium increases to offset the losses resulting from their compliance with government regulations.

As for the “outrageous” profits recently reported by WellPoint, The Wall Street Journal observed that, “$2.2 billion of WellPoint’s $2.7 billion fourth-quarter earnings came from the one-time sale of a subsidiary.” The editorial also noted that Wellpoint “lost $58 million in California on its post-Cobra customers in 2009. If Wellpoint didn’t raise premiums amid these losses, it would soon be under assault from its shareholders, if not out of business.”

It always amazes me when politicians and editorial writers refer to the “outrageous” profits reported by a business. They always throw out a big number, like a billion dollars, without providing any context to the number. You can’t evaluate whether a billion dollars is a reasonable or an unreasonable profit without knowing the amount invested in the business. A billion dollars could represent a 1% or a 40% return on investment. Don’t expect the politicians or editorial writers who are promoting a political agenda to give you the information you need, unless the information supports the position they are seeking to advance.

The New York Times argues the premium increases, combined with the “substantial” profits earned by the nation’s health insurers, prove the need for ObamaCare. The Wall Street Journal argues the premium increases represent a preview of what will happen nationwide if ObamaCare passes. “The Democratic bills would control what insurers could charge and force them to take all comers, regardless of health status. These burdens were supposed to be made tolerable by requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. Yet when this ‘individual mandate’ proved to be unpopular, Congress watered it down so that younger customers would be able to pay the penalty knowing they can wait until they’re sick to pay the more expensive premiums. The only way an insurer can make up for these higher costs is to raise premiums.”

The controversy over the increased health insurance premiums is typical of the way most issues are debated today. Each side selectively presents only the facts supporting its political agenda and ignores or distorts any facts that could be used to oppose its agenda. We expect this from lawyers, who get paid to represent a client’s interests. We expect this from politicians, who are seeking to advance their political agenda rather than find the right solution to a problem. Unfortunately, most of us now expect the same bias from the news media, which no longer provides balance and objectivity, if it ever did. Today, most members of the media are as biased as the politicians about whom they are reporting.

It would be nice if I could find a place where I could get both sides of an issue in a clear and objective manner. Unfortunately, I haven’t found such a place. Everywhere I go I can identify bias and lack of objectivity. The only solution I know for those trying to understand both sides of an issue is to read and listen to multiple sources with different biases. Finding the truth is becoming more difficult all the time.

End the War

Dear President Obama:

There is a simple and easy way for you to take a giant step toward solving one of the major problems facing the country and your administration. End the war. I’m not referring to the wars you inherited—the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the war against terrorism. These wars cannot easily be ended. I am referring to your war—the war you started on the campaign trail and have fought aggressively since becoming our President. I am referring, of course, to your war against business.

During the last month or so, you have finally turned your focus to the country’s high unemployment rate and to the country’s need for new jobs. You have announced plans for yet another stimulus program to address this problem. Of course, you are not referring to your new stimulus program as a stimulus program, but that’s what it is.

The problem is that jobs cannot be created without capital investment. There is only so much the government can do to encourage capital investment, but there is a lot it can do to discourage it. Since you became President, you have constantly castigated businesses and investors and threatened to impose new taxes and regulations on them. By doing so, you have discouraged capital investment by creating uncertainty about the rules, regulations, and taxes to which businesses and investors will be subject. Uncertainty is the enemy of capital investment. Businesses and investors are not willing to make new investments when they don’t know the rules of the game. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that businesses and investors have retreated to the sidelines.

The United States of America has prospered and has created the highest standard of living in the history of the world because it has a free market economy. I don’t believe you understand or appreciate the free market economy. In fact, it is fairly clear you want to change the free market economy. Your pledge to transform America and to change virtually everything about our economy may have sounded good on the campaign trial, but it hasn’t worked out so well in real life.

The private sector—not the government—is what makes our country tick. The government does not create wealth. It consumes wealth created by the private sector. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, recently wrote, “Since the only resources the government has are the resources it takes from the private sector, using those resources to create jobs means reducing the resources available to create jobs in the private sector.”

Since you became President, the number of government jobs has been increasing during a time when the private sector has lost millions of jobs. There are fewer people in the private sector supporting more people on the public payroll. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this is a recipe for disaster.

Many of your proposals have had a chilling effect on the private sector and thus on the private sector’s ability to create jobs. These proposals include your health care reform legislation, your cap-and-trade energy tax, your various ideas to make it easier for unions to organize and to exercise more influence over businesses, your plans to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who happen to be the ones who have the resources and are most likely to invest in new or existing businesses, and your general desire to impose more costs and red tape on businesses. All of these proposals in the aggregate have made it virtually impossible for investors to evaluate the risks of potential investments. The uncertainty created by these proposals has resulted in paralysis, and the paralysis has resulted in higher unemployment.

I have many friends who have been very successful in the private sector. Some are executives in large companies, and some own small businesses. I have a few friends who in the past have provided small businesses with the capital they needed to grow and expand. I also know some financial planners. I enjoy talking with my friends about their feelings about the current economy and their outlook for the future. Almost all of my friends tell me they are holding back on making major new investments in their businesses because they are concerned about the impact of future government policies.

The comments I am hearing from my friends are consistent with what I am reading. In the January 18, 2010 issue of Barron’s, for example, Meryl Witmer, General Partner of Eagle Capital Partners, was quoted as saying, “In the past six months, whenever I have talked to a company I asked the chief executive or chief financial officer what it would take to bring jobs here. They said, ‘You know, the workforce isn’t that good, and there is so much regulation. I’m moving jobs out of the U.S.’ The government needs to cut back on regulation and taxes and open things up for business, or the jobs will continue to leave.” Mr. Witmer also said, “If we don’t cut taxes—corporate taxes—jobs will keep moving away. So take the hit now and grow from that new base.”

I agree with a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, which said, “We can’t blame employers for their caution. With so much policy uncertainty out of Washington and the state capitols, no one can be sure what they will pay for energy (rising oil prices, cap and trade) or new regulation (antitrust), how high their taxes will rise, and how much each new employee will cost (health care). In this kind of world, employers will wait as long as possible to add new workers.”

The U.S. economy needs consumption for growth. We cannot have consumption without jobs. We cannot have jobs without capital spending and investment. We will not have adequate capital spending and investment as long as there is constant and significant uncertainty about how government policies will affect businesses.

Regardless of what you do, I believe the U.S. economy will improve over time, and the private sector will eventually begin to create new jobs again. This will happen much sooner, however, if you end your war against business and get out of the way. By doing so, you’ll be able to take credit for an improved economy and lower unemployment simply by letting the private sector do what it does best without government interference. You might even win re-election in 2012.

The Immoral Generation

In 1998, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw wrote a best-selling book entitled The Greatest Generation. The book describes the generation of which my parents were a part. According to the dust jacket of the book, it tells the stories of “America’s citizen heroes and heroines who came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War and went on to build modern America. This generation was united not only by a common purpose, but also by common values—duty, honor, economy, courage, service, love of family and country, and, above all, responsibility for oneself.”

It’s hard to believe how much has changed in a generation. Through hard work and sacrifice, The Greatest Generation built a great country for subsequent generations to enjoy. My generation inherited freedom, prosperity, values, and opportunity from The Greatest Generation, but we are rapidly destroying these invaluable gifts. Regrettably, my generation could—and probably should—be referred to by historians as “The Immoral Generation.”

There are many reasons why I think “The Immoral Generation” is an appropriate label for my generation. One of the primary reasons is the massive amount of debt being incurred today by the federal government with full knowledge the debt will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. It would be reckless and immoral for me to borrow money to finance an extravagant lifestyle with knowledge that my children and grandchildren would have to repay my debts following my death. This is exactly what my generation is doing by tolerating the federal government’s spending splurge. We are robbing our children and grandchildren of their future because we are unwilling to live within our means today.

The current indebtedness of the federal government exceeds $12.3 trillion, and it is expanding at a breath-taking pace. Click on the following link for a shocking display of the federal government’s immorality:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The federal government’s indebtedness is increasing at an alarming rate because the government continues to incur massive budget deficits year after year. The budget deficit this year is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. The government will incur another deficit of $1.3 trillion next year, and this assumes Congress has the will to reduce funding for certain programs, which is unlikely. Brian M. Riedl, an analyst for The Heritage Foundation, estimates that the federal government will add “an astonishing $16.3 trillion in new debt between 2009 and 2020--$130,000 per household over those 12 years.”

When the federal government reports the amount of its debt, it does not include an estimated $100 trillion or more in unfunded liabilities under the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other government retirement programs. These unfunded liabilities represent promises made by the government to its citizens that the government in all likelihood will be not be able to fulfill.

The federal government has acted irresponsibility for years under both the Democratic and the Republican administrations. The current spending splurge under President Obama, however, is completely unprecedented. Our government has gone from being irresponsible to being immoral. Our children and grandchildren will face massive tax increases in order to pay for the money we are spending today.

In a recent article for American Thinker, Peter Marin wrote, “It’s time for Americans to realize that the good times have stopped rolling. There may be no return to a robust economy. Our future can take only one of two possible paths; either we accept our unsustainable debt and reduce government spending and taxation accordingly with a structured refinancing of the Federal debt, or face the prospect of a chaotic bankruptcy with a massive collapse of the dollar on the world market followed by a severely reduced standard of living. If it's any indication of the way government has approached past difficulties, I'm betting on the chaotic. Stagflation on a large scale may well make the 1970's look like high times. Job losses that will occur may well make the 1930's look like a picnic.”

In addition to the huge burden that will fall on our children and grandchildren, the federal government’s massive indebtedness is threatening our national security. In a column written for The Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Gerald F. Seib identified the following four ways the government’s budget deficits are threatening our national security:

(1) Our budget deficits make America vulnerable to foreign pressures. Mr. Seib observed that the federal government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors. “A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the U.S. in a way its military never could.”

(2) Chinese power is growing as a result of our huge budget deficits. Mr. Seib noted a lot of our debt is being purchased by China, which is “slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the American government.”

(3) Our national security budgets are at risk. Mr. Seib wrote, “These national-security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the era of terrorism. But unless the deficit arc changes, they will come under pressure for cuts.”

(4) Finally, Mr. Seib said the “American model is being undermined before the rest of the world,” which is “the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits.” He wrote that the “image of an invincible America…..made other countries listen when Washington talked” and “often—not always, of course, but often—made other peoples and leaders yearn to be like America.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that our immorality not only is transferring a huge burden to our children and grandchildren but also is threatening the very future of our country as a sovereign nation. In a few short years, The Immoral Generation has replaced The Greatest Generation.

Ignoring the Constitution

Fact: Amendment No. 1 to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Fact: In 2002, Congress passed legislation prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. The law contains civil and criminal penalties for those who violate it.

Fact: In 2008, a lower federal court, based on the 2002 law, barred Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, from releasing a documentary critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for President of the United States, within 30 days of primary elections.

Fact: Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law prohibiting political spending by corporations in candidate elections was unconstitutional. The Court concluded the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating political speech. According to the Court’s majority opinion, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Fact: Liberals are berserk over the Court’s decision. Without mentioning the Constitution, President Obama, who once taught constitutional law, called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” (He forgot to mention unions.) Even though the Court’s decision was based on a law enacted in 2002, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, the whiner from New York, said, “With the stroke of a pen, the Court decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures and override the will of millions of Americans who want their voices heard in our democracy.” The New York Times published an editorial entitled “The Court’s Blow to Democracy.” The Times said the Supreme Court “has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19^th century” and “has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.” In a tirade about the decision, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said, “This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual democracy is left in this democracy.”

Let me admit I’m a simple-minded individual. I’m not as sophisticated and intelligent as my liberal friends. But it seems to me there was one glaring omission from the condemning comments of those who are outraged by the Court’s decision. What was missing was any reference to the express language of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly and unambiguously prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” There is nothing in the First Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution stating corporations or other associations of citizens are not entitled to freedom of speech. As a result, the Court’s decision, to me, was a no-brainer. I should add, however, that the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court voted in favor of upholding the law restricting political speech. These justices used their liberal logic to conclude the Constitution permits—rather than forbids—Congress to pass laws “abridging the freedom of speech”.

Those who are objecting to the Court’s decision obviously believe the language of the Constitution should be irrelevant as long as they can make a strong policy argument in favor of their position. In other words, the constitutional prohibition against laws restricting freedom of speech is irrelevant as long as the restrictions on freedom of speech have merit in the minds of those who favor the restrictions.

There are, of course, some provisions of the Constitution that are very general in nature and are subject to legitimate differences of opinion regarding their scope. For example, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The power to regulate interstate commerce has been relied upon by Congress over the years continuously to expand the power and reach of the federal government. Reasonable people can disagree over the scope of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. It is much more difficult, however, to find a constitutional justification for prohibiting speech. The lack of a constitutional justification for prohibiting speech does not get in the way of those who want to do so. They simply ignore the Constitution and base their arguments on policies they believe to have merit without regard to whether those policies are prohibited by the Constitution.

It is true the Supreme Court, prior to its decision last week, had previously upheld laws restricting political speech by corporations. Those who are enraged by the Court’s decision are arguing the Court should have followed its own precedents even if those precedents were inconsistent with the express language of the Constitution. I believe the Constitution—not the Supreme Court—is supreme. The Supreme Court has made many mistakes during its history. For example, in 1857, the Supreme Court declared that all blacks—slaves as well as free—were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The Court also ruled Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery. 

These clearly mistaken rulings by the Supreme Court were later corrected. The Constitution does and should take priority over the Court’s prior rulings. If the Court always followed its precedents, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, “segregation would be legal, minimum-wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

It is also true there are legitimate concerns about the influence of money in elections and in politics generally. I share these concerns. But I believe the Constitution means what it says, especially when the language is clear and unambiguous. In my simple way of thinking, if the Constitution says Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech, it means Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.

There are procedures for amending the Constitution. Those who don’t like what the Constitution says should try to amend it. They should not simply ignore it.