The Decline in Sexual Morality

During the last several decades, there has been a significant decline in sexual morality in our country. Many factors have contributed to this decline. One of the major factors was the sexual revolution that took place during the 1960’s and 1970’s. The sexual revolution, which was heavily promoted by the news media and the entertainment industry, was designed to encourage sexual encounters between unmarried adults and to encourage young people to acquire sexual experiences at increasingly earlier ages. Another factor contributing to the decline in sexual morality has been the explosion of sex scandals involving public figures, including politicians, sports heroes, and entertainers.

The most recent example of the decline in sexual morality involves another celebrity who has engaged in highly immoral behavior without any obvious consequences other than the pain he has brought to his own family. University of Louisville Basketball Coach Rick Pitino, who describes himself as a good Catholic family man, has recently admitted he had sex on a table in a restaurant with a woman who was not his wife. The only good news is that the affair took place after the restaurant had closed. The woman claims Pitino raped her, but the only witness, one of Pitino’s assistants, claims the woman was a willing participant. To make matters worse, the woman became pregnant, and Pitino gave her $3,000. The woman claims Pitino gave her the money so she could have an abortion. Pitino says he gave her the money so she could buy insurance.

The University of Louisville's contract with Pitino allows him to be fired for cause for acts of “moral depravity” or for being dishonest with the university. The University of Louisville, however, does not want to lose one of the nation’s best basketball coaches, so it is looking the other way. Dr. James Ramsey, President of the University of Louisville, issued a statement praising Pitino for being a role model for countless young people and a positive influence on the community. Dr. Ramsey said he was “saddened and disappointed” by Pitino’s conduct, but he added Pitino has done the right thing by admitting his mistake. He added, “We hope this closes this chapter; we’re ready to move on.”

The August 24, 2009 edition of Sports Illustrated contained an article about the Pitino sex scandal. The article quoted a University of Louisville student as saying, “As long as [Pitino] can coach a basketball team, I don’t care what he does on the side.” The last sentence of the article said, “Pitino’s behavior has put moral issues in play, but come November the scoreboard measures only points.”

For eight years, Pitino was the head basketball coach at the University of Kentucky, the university where I received my undergraduate degree. I am an avid University of Kentucky basketball fan. I met Pitino on several occasions, and I thought he had a huge ego, but he seemed like an honorable person. I was crushed when Pitino announced he was resigning his position at the University of Kentucky to become head coach of the Boston Celtics. Now, I am thankful he is gone. If Pitino had engaged in the conduct he has now admitted while the coach at the University of Kentucky, I hope he would have been terminated. The conduct Pitino has admitted demands serious consequences—not a mild slap on the wrist.

In today’s environment, I suppose it is unreasonable to think Pitino’s present employer, the University of Louisville, would do anything more than it has done. After all, Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States, continues to be very popular and to have many admirers despite his numerous sexual escapades, including his admission he had sex with a young White House intern in the Oval Office. Clinton has had numerous extramarital affairs, and at least one woman has accused him of raping her. Clinton taught the young and old alike new ways of having sex without calling it sex. By his example, Clinton has personally done more to promote sexual promiscuity than any other major politician in my lifetime.

There are, of course, many other examples of public figures who have contributed to the decline in sexual morality in our society. Among politicians, Republicans, who like to talk about family values, are just as guilty as Democrats. Within the last few months, two prominent Republicans—South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator John Ensign—have admitted extramarital affairs. Both Governor Sanford and Senator Ensign had been mentioned as possible candidates for President of the United States. The media is much harder on a Republican who gets caught with his pants down than it is a Democrat. Moreover, it is much more difficult for a Republican to survive a sex scandal without damage to his political career. Perhaps this is fair because the Republicans are usually the ones preaching about the need for morality and family values. The Democrats don’t talk much about morality, which protects them against charges of hypocrisy when they engage in immoral conduct.

Many other celebrities, including movie stars, athletes, and musicians, are poor role models for young people. It is customary to hear about celebrities who are engaging in premarital or extramarital affairs and having children out of wedlock. It is highly unusual to hear about a celebrity who is actually attempting to serve as a positive role model for young people.

It is almost impossible to read a novel or to watch a movie or a television program that does not include sex scenes involving people who are not married or who are married to someone other than their sexual partners. Our children are being taught from an early age that this type of conduct is normal and acceptable. Parents who want to teach different values to their children are facing an uphill battle.

Some churches have even contributed to the decline in sexual morality. In an effort to be open to and accepting of all people, some churches are afraid to use words like “sin” or to discourage conduct that has become generally acceptable in today’s society. The goal is to make everyone feel good about himself or herself.

The net effect of the decline in sexual morality is that we now live in an “anything goes” culture. There are no longer concrete rules about what is right and what is wrong. There is no shame anymore. We now accept, ignore, or quickly forget about conduct that was once totally unacceptable. I realize, of course, that many of the things I am discussing have always existed to a greater or lesser extent. The difference is that people who engaged in this type of behavior in the past were discreet because they knew society would not approve of their conduct. Today, society does approve, and there is no shame. Anything goes. Everyone is doing it. Let’s have some fun.

Too Big To Succeed

When I was practicing law, I had a fair amount of contact with different agencies of the federal government. More often than not, my contacts with government agencies were extremely frustrating. I know there are many excellent and conscientious government employees, and I have met a few of them along the way. In most cases, however, the government employees with whom I have worked were inefficient and did not demonstrate any sense of urgency. They did not have the attitude they were being paid to serve the public. Instead, they acted like they were doing you a favor if they did their job.

I used to represent a client who had frequent dealings with an agency that is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The building that houses the Department of Agriculture is huge. I always thought I could see the curvature of the earth when I was standing at one end of the hall and looking down the hall toward the other end. I was always depressed when I walked the hallways of the Department of Agriculture and looked into the various offices I passed along the way. This was many years ago, and the size of the bureaucracy was staggering. The federal government today probably has two or three times the number of employees it had then.

On one occasion, I flew to Washington, D.C. early one morning to close a government loan for my client. Although the closing had been planned weeks in advance, all of the documents were not ready when I arrived. I sat around most of the day waiting to complete the closing. At about 4:30 in the afternoon, we needed perhaps five or ten more minutes to complete the closing. The government attorney with whom I was working announced he had to leave to catch his bus and we would have to finish the closing the next day. I pleaded for him to stay for ten more minutes, but he was gone. I had planned to return to Atlanta that evening, but instead I went shopping for a toothbrush, a razor, and some clean underwear. I found a hotel room and called my wife and told her I wouldn’t be home until the next day. She was not surprised because she knew why I had gone to Washington.

Today, I am frequently reminded of my personal experiences with the federal government when I am reading the newspaper. On almost any given day, I can find an article about government waste or inefficiency or about a government program that is in disarray. Several days ago, I read several articles on the same day describing different government programs that were experiencing problems. The individual articles are noteworthy only because they describe typical problems with government programs.

Several of the articles discussed the recently completed “Cash for Clunkers” program, which the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are hailing as an example of a highly successful government program. A successful government program is one that transfers money from one group of citizens to another group, which is exactly what the “Cash for Clunkers” program did. The program transferred money from people who pay taxes to people who used taxpayer-funded subsidies to help them purchase a new car.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program was designed to promote the automobile industry and at the same time to replace old gas-guzzling cars with fuel-efficient cars. One article about the program described the problems the automobile dealers were experiencing in getting paid the money promised to them by the government. The article described the amount of paperwork involved in submitting a claim to the government and the government’s failure to process the claims on a timely basis. Another article pointed out that some trucks and sport-utility vehicles getting less than 20 miles per gallon were being purchased with government subsidies. Still another article said the supply of inexpensive cars available to poor people who needed transportation to get to work was being substantially reduced by the program’s requirement that the automobile dealers destroy the old cars being traded in for new cars. Finally, an editorial compared the “Cash for Clunkers” program with the government’s efforts several years ago to encourage people to buy houses they couldn’t afford. The editorial speculated the program was inducing many people to buy cars they couldn’t afford.

On the same day, I read another article about a non-profit housing agency in Nebraska that was expecting to receive a share of $5 billion in federal stimulus money to seal windows and install insulation to make the homes of low-income people more energy efficient. The work was expected to begin months ago, but no windows have been sealed and no insulation has been installed. The article said the Nebraska non-profit agency is one of many nationwide who are sitting on millions of dollars of stimulus money they cannot spend because of arcane federal rules governing how much workers should be paid for making energy-saving home improvements. According to the article, the non-profit agencies “blame months of mixed signals sent by federal officials.” According to one program manager, “It seems like it’s just been one roadblock after another.” The article quoted David Bradley, executive director of the National Community Action Foundation, who said the “vast majority” of states aren’t spending the money allocated to them. It also quoted an official from the U.S. Department of Energy who acknowledged there has been confusion “across the board.”

I read another article on the same day published by The New York Times regarding the Energy Department’s failure to use the same energy efficiency techniques it advocates for others. According to the article, “The Energy Department strives to be a leader in championing energy efficiency. Its Web site lists energy-saving tips, while Secretary Steven Chu calls conservation one of the department’s most important goals. But at many of the agency’s buildings, even at national laboratories where talented scientists seek technological break-throughs to save energy, the department has failed to use one of the simplest, most effective tools available to any ordinary household—thermostats that automatically dial back the temperature when nobody is around. A recent audit found the Energy Department could save more than $11.5 million in energy costs by properly employing these ‘setback’ controls to adjust the heat and air conditioning at night and on weekends.”

Some things never change. The federal government has been out of control for years, and it continues to be out of control. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government now has more than 1.8 million civilian employees, excluding the U.S. Post Office and the military. The federal government is the nation’s largest employer. The number of federal government employees is growing at a time when the number of jobs in the private sector is shrinking. As the government grows, it becomes increasingly inefficient.

In recent months, the federal government has acquired control of financial institutions, insurance companies, and automobile manufacturers because, in the government’s opinion, these businesses were “too big to fail.” As I see it, the federal government is too big to succeed.

Catching Wild PIgs

The novelist Flannery O’Conner once said, “A story is something that can’t be said any other way.” She also said, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”

Some of our most important moral lessons are taught by means of stories. Jesus, for example, used parables to illustrate a truth or lesson. A parable is nothing more than a short story told to describe or illustrate a truth or lesson. Jesus communicated with stories because they clearly and effectively illustrated his points in a manner to which his listeners could relate. This form of teaching can be much more effective than an abstract presentation. Many children’s books also use stories to teach important life lessons. Consider, for example, the story about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” from Aesop’s fables, which teaches children about the importance of trust.

A friend recently told me a story that contains a great moral lesson and helps explain the current state of our society. The story involves a professor at a large college who had several foreign exchange students in his class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor observed that one of his exchange students was rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the student what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in this back. He had been shot in his native country while fighting Communists who were trying to overthrow his country's government.

While telling his story, the student looked at the professor and asked a strange question: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" 
 The professor thought the student was telling a joke and asked for the punch line. The student said it was not a joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and placing corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they get used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are accustomed to coming.

"When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you then put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, used to the free corn, come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate shut and catch the pigs.

"Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are trapped. Soon they surrender and go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to the free corn that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.” 


The young man then told the professor this is exactly what he sees is happening in America today. The government keeps pushing us down the road to socialism and keeps giving us free corn in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credits for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops, welfare, subsidized housing, and medical and drug benefits. We are continually losing our freedoms, just a little at a time. 


The story about the wild pigs reminds me of Rainer Maria Rilke’s poem entitled “The Panther.” The poem tells the story of a powerful and beautiful panther who was once free but is now behind bars. Because he is no longer free, the panther loses his beauty and power. Although the panther’s confinement protects him from danger, his spirit is defeated. The panther is still alive but is truly dead and is really no longer a panther at all.

Both of these stories have a common theme. We lose our souls when we lose our freedom, we lose our souls when we no longer have responsibility for ourselves, and we lose our souls when we become dependent upon others for our livelihood. As Flannery O’Connor said, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”

A Patient's and a Doctor's Concerns

Many people are concerned about President Obama’s plans to reform our health care system. The people who are concerned obviously have doubts about President Obama’s promises that his reforms will both reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care. They also don’t believe President Obama when he says his reforms will not lead to rationing of health care or the denial of health care benefits to the elderly.

Some of those who are concerned about President Obama’s health care reforms are expressing their concerns—and in some cases their anger—by attending town hall meetings held by their Congressmen. During the last week, the news media reported numerous incidents of rowdy crowds expressing their concern and frustration about President Obama’s health care proposals to the few members of Congress who were brave enough to hold town hall meetings in their districts. In their normal fashion, the Democrats have unleashed the attack dogs on those who disagree with them and are encouraging other Democrats to cancel any town hall meetings previously planned for the future.

While some are protesting, others are quietly attempting to protect themselves from what they view as the inevitable result of President Obama’s health care proposals. A doctor who is a friend of mine shared with me a letter he received last week from one of his patients. I don’t know who wrote the letter, and I am not going to reveal the name of the doctor who received it. Here is what the letter said:

“Dear Dr. _______________:

“I would be pleased if you were to respond at your leisure to the following hypothetical.

“My hip replacement prostheses are now 12 years old. I anticipate that they will need replacement in five or ten years. In five years, I shall be 77 years of age. Health reform now before Congress suggests that hip replacements may be rationed for the elderly. I suppose that in five years I shall be classified as such. Even if healthcare does not pass, I expect Medicare in the future to compensate certain procedures for the elderly at low levels unacceptable to most doctors.

“I wish to propose a contract between doctor and patient in which the doctor commits to providing a procedure five years hence or thereafter in return for a remuneration based upon today’s cost adjusted for time. The patient would contribute monthly to an account that in five years with interest would cover today’s cost of surgery adjusted by some index—say the medical component of the Consumer Price Index. The contract would remain in force even if the surgery were unnecessary in that fifth year. The patient would continue payments based upon the annual change in cost. If surgery never becomes necessary due to death or some other mitigating circumstance, the doctor would receive a surrender charge as compensation for his commitment.

“I see the contract as being important if for some reason our government decides that procedures outside designated government coverage become illegal. Perhaps, I am being generous in saying the government would not cancel a contract retroactively. The contract ensures that the patient will receive needed surgery; the doctor benefits by ensuring a fee that may not be obtainable in a government-run healthcare system.

“A similar contract might be presented to a hospital.

“I submit this letter seeking an opinion for my own benefit, but inquiring whether or not other persons in the same situation as I might benefit also.” Respectively, Name Confidential

During the last week, another friend of mine who has spent his entire career in the medical industry shared with me an e-mail he received from a well-known orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon distributed his e-mail to some of his friends in the industry. The surgeon said he had personally reviewed the latest version of the health care reforms supported by President Obama. The following are excerpts from the e-mail written by the surgeon:

“The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care… The plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs….[I]f you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer….dream on if you think you will get treated….pick out your box. Oh you say…this could never happen….sorry…this is the same model they use in Britain.

“Not to worry, according to the plan, there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available….why? The plan also creates The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This illustrious Council’s purpose is ‘to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs.’ How special is that!!

“The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. This ‘coordinator’ will ‘monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate.’ It goes on to say, ‘Doctors and hospitals not adhering to the guidelines will face penalties.’ According to those in Congress penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. So according to the Obama Plan….if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow-up appointments.

“Finally, on page 16 of the plan….it is ILLEGAL for a citizen to have private insurance if they lose their job, change their job, become a senior citizen or graduate from college and land their first job…yes…illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of the play yesterday his response was…’I am not familiar with that part of the plan.’ Don’t believe me…take a look.”

I realize, of course, that President Obama denies his health care reforms will have the drastic consequences summarized in the orthopedic surgeon’s e-mail. It is becoming increasingly clear that a lot of misinformation is being spread during the course of the debate about the proposed health care reforms. In order to determine the facts, I decided to review the bill now pending in Congress under the title “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” After scanning the bill for an hour or so, I got frustrated and gave up. The bill is 1,018 pages in length and is extremely complex and confusing. I don’t have the time or the patience to analyze the bill line by line. It would take weeks—probably months—for me to understand the bill and all of its implications. I can only guarantee one thing: there is not a single member of Congress who has read and understands the bill. Moreover, I am confident President Obama has not read the bill, and I am sure he does not understand all of its implications. If you would like to review the bill, be my guest. Here is a link that will take you to it:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

It all boils down to this: do you believe President Obama and members of Congress are capable of passing legislation that will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care without resulting in the rationing of health care or in the denial of health care benefits? If you are willing to place your trust—and possibly your life—in the hands of our government, then God bless you. I wish you all the best.

Health Care for the Elderly

For approximately 35 years, I have attended the same church with a woman who is now 99 years old and rapidly approaching the magic age of 100.    The woman, who is the matriarch of her family, still lives in her own home.  Unfortunately, she has become somewhat fragile in recent years and does not get out much these days.   Her mind, however, is still sharp as a tack.   She is very bright and keeps up with the world news on a daily basis.   She even reads the articles I write for this blog when her daughter takes printed copies of the articles to her.    

At the age of 88, my church friend had open-heart surgery to take care of blockages in three of her coronary arteries.    She has lived many good, productive, and enjoyable years since her heart surgery.    She has had the opportunity to witness the growth and maturity of her grandchildren, to watch them graduate from college, and to attend their weddings.    In recent years, she has had the opportunity to become a great-grandmother and to hold her great-grandchildren.   

I think frequently about my 99-year-old church friend and others like her when I am reading about President Obama’s plans to reform our health care system.   I wonder if she would be alive today if the health care reforms currently being proposed had been implemented 15 years ago.  My guess is she would not be alive today.   She would have missed all the good times she has enjoyed since her heart surgery, and the members of her family would have missed the good times they have shared with her.   

President Obama strongly contends his health care reforms will reduce the cost of health care while at the same time expanding access to health care and improving the quality of care.   He also has pledged his health care plan will not increase the government’s already staggering budget deficit.  He adamantly contends his health care reforms will not lead to rationing of health care or denial of health care benefits to the elderly.   President Obama, in effect, is promising a free lunch to everyone.   Everyone will get what he or she wants, and we will all live happily ever after.   

You can count me as a skeptic.  President Obama’s promises both defy logic and represent a denial of reality.    I cannot think of a single example where the government has expanded a program to cover more people and at the same time has reduced the cost of the program.   Every government program ultimately costs more than its sponsors predicted.   Almost all government programs grow faster than the ivy and kudzu in my backyard.    Almost all government programs are characterized by waste and inefficiency.   

Despite President Obama’s assurances to the contrary, there are at least three reasons why I think elderly Americans cannot expect to receive the same quality of health care in the future as they have in the past.   First, the existing Medicare program, which is designed to provide health care benefits to citizens age 65 and above, is already bankrupt.   Second, President Obama is promising to pay for his new health care reform package in part by cutting Medicare benefits by $500 billion.   Third, the government is spending more than a billion dollars for “comparative effectiveness research,” which in my opinion will inevitably lead to limitations on expensive medical care for elderly patients.  

In typical fashion, the politicians in Washington are making new spending commitments at a time when they should be focusing on how to meet the commitments they have already made.   According to an article written by Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics, the federal government already has unfunded liabilities for the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs in the aggregate amount of approximately $100 trillion.    Professor Buiter’s article was published on June 12, 2009 on the website for the Financial Times.  Professor Buiter emphasizes that these unfunded liabilities are not “contractual commitments or legal obligations” but instead represent “promises made by politicians and expectations of US citizens shaped by these promises.”   Professor Buiter says, “it is obvious” the federal government will default on its unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare benefits.   He predicts the government will “renege on these promises and commitments” in a number of ways, including “rationing of hospital stays and doctors visits” and “denial of expensive treatments and medication to state-insured patients (beginning with the elderly).”    

Then you have President Obama’s proposal to cut Medicare benefits by $500 billion in order to help “pay” for his health care reform plan.   This would be a difficult task even if the number of beneficiaries in the Medicare program were not about to explode due to the demographics of the population.   President Obama thinks he can save $500 billion by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse from the Medicare program.  The government has been trying to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse from Medicare and other government programs for years under both Democratic and Republican administrations.   It’s easier said than done.   As government programs get larger, it becomes more and more difficult to identify and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.  I am completely in favor of efforts to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.   In my opinion, however, the government will not be able to realize substantial savings in the Medicare program without limiting the benefits available to existing and future Medicare beneficiaries.  

Finally, there is the issue of the comparative effectiveness research currently being funded by the government.    On the surface, comparative effectiveness research makes sense.  Moreover, the legislation authorizing the comparative effectiveness research provides the research cannot be used to set clinical guidelines, or mandate coverage, reimbursement or policies for public or private payers.    In other words, Congress has provided funds to study a problem but has already declared the results of the study cannot be used to make decisions.      

Not surprisingly, many observers believe comparative effectiveness research will ultimately result in limitations on care for the elderly.   One outspoken critic of comparative effectiveness research is Betsy McCaughey, the founder and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York.  In an article published in The Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2009, Ms. McCaughey said comparative effectiveness research “is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age.”    She added, “Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit.   In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.”   

What does the future hold for elderly Americans who need expensive medical care?  In my opinion, the future is grim regardless of whether President Obama is ultimately successful in persuading Congress to pass his health care reform legislation.  The government cannot afford to meet the promises it has already made to the elderly.   It is now making more promises to more people everyday without having the money to meet the promises.   The name of the game is to reap political benefits today by making promises that will come due in the future.  When the day of reckoning arrives, it is highly likely the government will be forced to deny expensive medical care to the elderly.   

The ultimate question is who should decide whether an elderly person has the right to receive an expensive medical treatment that could prolong his or her life.   Would you prefer for the decision to be made jointly by the patient, the patient’s family, and the patient’s doctor?  Or would you prefer for the decision to be made by the government?   In my experience, the people who have control over the money are the ones who generally get to make the decisions.    This is why I believe the government, in the future, will not be willing to pay for someone who is 88 years old to undergo heart bypass surgery, or for someone who is 85 years old to receive expensive treatment for cancer, or for someone who is 80 years old to receive a knee or hip replacement.    The dollars involved in paying for the treatment will not be justified by the government’s view of the value of the patient’s remaining life.     

It is becoming increasingly clear that we work for the government during our lifetime, and we will live at the mercy of the government during our final days.      

Reducing the Unemployment Rate

One of the biggest problems facing our economy today is the high rate of unemployment.   The national unemployment rate is currently at 9.5%.   Although the economy is showing some signs of improvement, most economists are predicting the unemployment rate will continue to climb and will exceed 10% later this year.    It already is well over 10% in some areas of the country.  

The unemployment rate was approximately 4.8% in early 2008 when Congress passed the long-forgotten $168 billion stimulus package while George W. Bush was still President of the United States.  When Congress passed the more recent $787 billion stimulus package earlier this year, the unemployment rate was at 7.6%.  At the time, our newly elected President, Barak Obama, predicted the unemployment rate would reach 9% by 2010 unless the new stimulus package was passed immediately.   Congress passed the stimulus legislation and President Obama signed it into law with the promise it would save jobs.   Regrettably, the unemployment rate now exceeds the level predicted by President Obama without the stimulus package.  Taken together, the two stimulus packages total almost $1 trillion in additional federal spending.   Instead of going down, the unemployment rate has almost doubled and is still climbing. 

Many economists believe the economy has hit bottom and is beginning to improve.   Although the worst may be behind us, many of these same economists are predicting a “jobless recovery”.    As the term implies, a “jobless recovery” means the unemployment rate will remain very high despite an improvement in the overall economy.   

It is obvious the high unemployment rate is a serious problem and will continue to be a drag on the entire economy.   People who do not have jobs cannot afford to spend money.    When people are not spending money, businesses cannot sell the things they make.  As a result, they quit making the things they cannot sell, which means they need fewer employees, which in turn adds to the unemployment rate.  It’s a vicious cycle. 

As I see it, you cannot create new jobs without economic development.   You cannot have economic development without investment.   You cannot have investment without people with money to invest.    Even if you have people with money to invest, you cannot have investment unless those people are willing to take the risks involved in making an investment.   You cannot have people who are willing to take investment risks unless they know the rules of the game and have confidence the rules will not be changed in a way that is detrimental to their investment.    

It is clear we desperately need new and creative government policies in order to encourage investment, which in turn will lead to economic development, which will ultimately result in job creation and reduced unemployment.   I have the following ten ideas for policies designed to accomplish these goals: 

(1)     President Obama and the Congress need to develop and implement a new stimulus package.   It is now clear the two previous stimulus packages were way too small.  The unemployment rate has continued to go up despite the stimulus packages.   The only obvious conclusion is that more federal spending is needed in order to reduce unemployment. 

(2)    The government should impose substantially higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.   Everyone knows the wealthiest people do not make the investments necessary for economic development and job creation.  Poor and middle-class people are the ones who make these investments.   The key to reduced unemployment, therefore, is to redistribute the wealth of the wealthiest Americans.   Poor and middle-class people are much more likely to hire the unemployed.  In addition, those who are unemployed will no longer have the indignity of seeking employment from someone who is wealthy.      

(3)    The government should increase taxes on investment income, including dividends and capital gains, while at the same time continuing to limit the ability of investors to reduce their tax liabilities in the event they incur investment losses.   This will give patriotic Americans the incentive they need to take investment risks because they know they will be helping the government if they are successful and not hurting the government if they suffer a loss on their investment. 

(4)    The government should reform our health care system and pay for the reforms by requiring businesses to provide health care to their employees or to pay a penalty for not doing so.   Increased financial burdens on businesses are a proven way to create more jobs.     

(5)    The government should save the environment by imposing a new tax on the carbon emissions for which businesses are responsible.   Each business will have to hire many new employees to monitor its carbon emissions and to keep track of its increased costs for electricity, gasoline, and natural gas, thereby reducing unemployment.  

(6)    The government should raise the minimum wage.    After all, the minimum wage has not been increased for the last two days.  It was increased on Friday, July 24, from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour.   In an editorial on the same day, The New York Times called for further increases in the minimum wage.   I think this is a great idea.   There is no doubt that increased employee wages will provide an incentive for employers to retain existing employees and hire new employees, further reducing unemployment.       

(7)    The government should impose massive new regulations on all types of businesses and should constantly be changing the rules to which businesses are subject.   By doing so, the government will force businesses to hire new employees to help them comply with the new regulations and the constantly changing rules.   Moreover, when they make their investments, investors love the challenge of guessing what future government policies might be.  It’s almost as much fun as gambling in Los Vegas.  

(8)    The government should adopt rules making it easier for employees to form unions and to put pressure on their employers for increased wages and benefits.    Most businesses love dealing with unions, and they will want to have as many union employees as possible.   Investors also love the excitement of having a stake in companies that could be forced out of business because of union demands.   It’s like a high-stakes poker game—great fun.  

(9)    The federal government should continue to spend more money than it collects in taxes every year, thereby increasing the size of the already staggering federal deficit.   Businesses will need new employees to help them figure out how to pay their share of the federal debt.   

(10)   Finally, the government should ban all businesses from earning a profit and all investors from earning a return on their investment.    Businesses will create many more new jobs if they no longer have to be concerned about earning a profit, and investors will be relieved of a lot of pressure if they are no longer concerned about earning a return on their investments.    

In summary, it seems clear to me that the best way to reduce unemployment is for the government to increase taxes, impose new fees, regulations, and burdens on businesses, increase the cost of hiring new employees, and continue to incur huge budget deficits and expand the national debt.    

If you like these ideas, I have a confession to make.  These ideas are not original to me.   They essentially reflect the policies currently being followed by the Obama Administration and the Congress of the United States.  I have made fun of the logic behind some of the policies, but, for the most part, these are the policies being followed today.   Do you think these policies are working?    Is it any wonder that the nation’s unemployment rate continues to climb?   

Political Theatre

President Reagan was a good politician and a great communicator because he was first an actor.   He knew how to play the roles assigned to him.    The more I observe politicians the more I realize they are all actors and actresses.   They play the roles and read the scripts assigned to them by their producers (or handlers).  Like actors and actresses, politicians have some discretion over the producers for whom they are willing to work and over the roles they agree to play.   After accepting an assignment, however, the acting begins in earnest. 

The most recent example of political theatre occurred last week during the confirmation hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme Court.   Everyone involved in the hearings, including Judge Sotomayer, was acting.  Everyone was delivering a script in the same way an actor or actress delivers a script in a movie or play.  

For me, watching the confirmation hearings was like watching a bad movie or play that I had already seen several times.    The only difference was that the actors had changed roles.    The Democrats assumed the role of praising and defending the President’s nominee, which was the role played by the Republicans during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush.    Likewise, the Republicans assumed the role of challenging the judicial philosophy of the President’s nominee, the same role played by the Democrats during the confirmation hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito.    All the politicians had to do was exchange scripts in the same way new scripts are assigned to actors and actresses when they play new roles in different movies or plays.  

During the confirmation hearings, many Democratic Senators heaped praise upon Judge Sotomayer because of her inspiring life story.   She is a Hispanic woman who grew up in a poor family living in a public housing project in the Bronx borough of New York.  Despite the disadvantages she faced as a child, Judge Sotomayer defied the odds and somehow managed to graduate from both Princeton University and Yale Law School, to pass the New York bar examination, to earn a position on the federal district court in New York, and to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Many of the same Democrats who praised Judge Sotomayer for her compelling life story, however, were playing a different role when another Hispanic with an equally compelling life story was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.   Do you remember the name Miguel Estrada?   He immigrated to the United States from Honduras when he was 17 and defied the odds by graduating magna cum laude from both Columbia University and Harvard Law School.   When President Bush nominated Mr. Estrada for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Democrats had a different role to play in the political theatre.   Instead of praising Mr. Estrada for his qualifications and accomplishments, they used a filibuster to keep his nomination from receiving an “up or down” vote in the U.S. Senate.   In both cases, the Democrats were playing the roles and reading the scripts assigned to them.    Of course, the Republicans were doing the same thing. 

The politicians were not the only ones acting at Judge Sotomayer’s confirmation hearings.  Judge Sotomayer was also acting.   She simply studied and regurgitated the scripts used by Justices Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings.   It made no difference to Judge Sotomayer that her judicial philosophy is probably quite different from the judicial philosophies of Justices Roberts and Alito.   She used their scripts because their scripts had worked for them and by doing so she was able to tell the Republicans what they wanted to hear.   She did not need to appeal to the Democrats because they were going to vote for her regardless of what she said. 

The most striking thing about the confirmation hearings was that Judge Sotomayer’s testimony about her judicial philosophy was totally inconsistent with her record and with her previous public statements.    Here is a woman who once boasted that the courts are where policy is made.   The same woman made it clear on several occasions that she sympathizes with various individuals or groups based on their ethnicity or gender and that she believes in the use of racial quotas and other racial preferences in order to achieve equal results among racial groups.   Judge Sotomayer’s most famous and most controversial remark was that a “wise Latina woman” would make better decisions than a white male.    Can you imagine what would happen if a white man said he would make better decisions than a Latina woman?    You know as well as I do that a white man who made such a comment, regardless of the context in which it was made, would have no chance whatsoever of being confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter. 

Judge Sotomayer’s record makes it very clear she has a liberal philosophy, but you would never know it from her testimony.   She followed almost to the letter the scripts used by Justices Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings.   She said, “Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. … The job of a judge is to apply the law.”   She added, “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”    As did Justices Roberts and Alito, she refused to answer questions on specific issues that might come before the Supreme Court, such as abortion rights, gun control, property rights, and affirmative action.  By taking this approach, she followed the standard script for any nominee to a federal court. 

What did the confirmation hearings accomplish?   In my opinion, they didn’t accomplish much.   We did not learn anything new or revealing about Judge Sotomayer’s true judicial philosophy or how she will vote on various issues as a member of the Supreme Court.  Not surprisingly, we discovered that Judge Sotomayer could remain calm, cool, courteous, and friendly under pressure.   We also discovered she could effectively deliver the script assigned to her by her producers (or handlers).   She did not make any major mistakes that could threaten her nomination.  That was her goal, and I believe she accomplished it. 

What do others think about the confirmation hearings?  Prior to the hearings, Professor Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown University, was a strong defender of some of the controversial comments made by Judge Sotomayer, including the “wise Latino woman” comment and the statement that judges make policy decisions.  After the hearings, Professor Seidman, in an evaluation posted on the website for The Federalist Society, said, “The performance of both the Senators and the nominee has been disgraceful.  If we are to give Judge Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt, she very substantially misrepresented her own views.  It is virtually impossible to give the Senators the benefit of the doubt.  Their questioning was at once frivolous, hectoring, and deeply ignorant.”   On the same website, M. Edward Whelan III, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote, “Judge Sotomayor deserves an A+ for brazen doublespeak.   She emphatically rejected the lawless "empathy" standard for judging that President Obama used to select her, but she denied the plain import of her many statements contesting the possibility and desirability of judicial impartiality.  She hid behind her empty clichés about judging, but she never recognized any meaningful bounds on the role of a Supreme Court justice.  She gave a series of confused statements about the use of foreign law that are inconsistent with each other and that contradict a speech that she gave just three months ago.”    Professor Matthew J. Franck, Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department at Radford University, wrote that Judge Sotomayor either substantially misrepresented her own views or “is a very confused thinker if she thinks her testimony can be squared with her own past statements on repeated occasions over a 15-year period.   I think it very likely that she was well-coached by White House handlers….”   

The bottom line, of course, is that everyone was acting during the confirmation hearings, and everyone was reading the scripts and playing the roles assigned to them.   The confirmation hearings represent an example of political theatre at its worst. 

Who is the real Judge Sotomayer?   Is she a woman who believes judges can make policy decisions and who approaches cases with a biased point of view based on the background and culture of the parties involved?   Or is she an unbiased judge who gives all parties fair and equal treatment and who bases her decisions strictly on the language of the Constitution and the laws she is obligated to apply?   Who is the real Judge Sotomayer?   We will find out in due course, but I think I already know the answer.