The Meaning and Effect of Socialism

Depending on the source, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens held a rally in Washington, D.C. last weekend to protest high taxes and out-of-control government spending. Many of those attending the rally held signs protesting the country’s slide toward socialism. Many of the protesters accused the President of the United States of being a socialist.

The terms “socialism” and “socialist” are being widely used these days by those who are concerned about the growth of the federal government and the government’s increased involvement in virtually all aspects of the economy. Even before the election, many conservatives, including me, feared President Obama, if elected, would accelerate the country’s slide toward socialism. For many, their worst fears are now being realized.

It is clear the terms “socialist” and “socialism” have negative connotations and invoke fear of a society totally controlled by the government with few, if any, individual liberties. But what do these terms really mean? I think it is time to pause and consider the meaning of these terms because they are being used so frequently in today’s political debates.

For many years, the 1985 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia has been collecting dust on a bookshelf in my house. I thought this would be a good place to start in attempting to understand the meaning of the term “socialism” because I wanted to see how the writers and editors of the Encyclopedia defined the term some 25 years ago. We all know definitions of words can change over time to correspond with changes in the culture or to comply with evolving standards of political correctness.

The Encyclopedia explains the goals and methods of socialism as follows:

“Socialists claim that free enterprise systems are inefficient and wasteful. They believe capitalism leads to such problems as unemployment, poverty, business cycles, and conflicts between workers and the owners of the means of production. To solve these problems, socialists believe that a nation’s wealth must be distributed more equally and justly. They strongly oppose social inequality and discrimination. Socialists aim for a society based on cooperation and brotherhood rather than on competition and self-interest.

“Socialism proposes to fulfill its aims by placing the major means of production in the hands of the people, either directly or through the government. … Many socialists favor a mixed economy—government ownership of basic industries and private ownership of many other businesses. The private businesses, however, would be regulated by the government.

“Socialists disagree over how much wealth should be left in private hands and how to deprive the rich of their excess property. Many socialists call for redistribution of wealth through taxation. They favor laws to help the aged, the unemployed, the disabled and handicapped, widows, dependent children, and other people in need. Many socialists believe that the government should also provide free education and medical service to everyone and should help all citizens obtain safe and sanitary housing at rents they can afford.

In the United States, for various reasons, socialism has never been as strong as in Europe. In Europe, socialism was largely a working-class movement. But the labor movement began later in the United States and grew slowly. Many scholars believe that labor developed slowly in the United States because the frontier and the untapped wealth of the country provided greater opportunities—even for the poor—than Europe did. Other scholars believe that American ideas of freedom and individualism weakened the appeal of socialism.”

Based on the Encyclopedia’s description of socialism, it is clear socialism already exists in this country to a fairly large extent. We already have “laws to help the aged, the unemployed, the disabled and handicapped, widows, dependent children, and other people in need.” The government already provides a free education to everyone through high school. We already redistribute wealth through a tax system that imposes higher tax rates on people with higher levels of income, relieves people with income below certain levels from the responsibility to pay income taxes, and provides for the issuance of “tax refunds” to individuals who don’t pay any income taxes. In addition, we redistribute wealth through a variety of other government benefits, such as food stamps, rent subsidies, and Medicaid, that are made available to people who don’t pay income taxes. In addition, the government, at least for the time being, owns and controls two automobile manufacturers and one of the nation’s largest insurance companies and also effectively controls the country’s largest banks either through regulation or direct equity ownership. An article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal quoted the president of a mortgage firm as saying, “Over 29 years in business, we’ve always thought of ourselves as being in the free-enterprise system. Today I think of myself as a government contractor.”

Our society today is really a blend between a socialist and a capitalist system. Over the last several decades, we have been moving in the direction of a socialist system by providing more and more government services to citizens at the expense of the wealthiest Americans who bear the largest share of the income tax burden. The question is where do you stop. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you conclude we have too many citizens who are dependent on government for their livelihood? When do you start requiring more individual responsibility from citizens? How much can you take away from the wealthiest Americans before they are no longer wealthy or no longer have the incentive to create wealth?

Most conservatives believe we have already gone too far down the road to socialism and are convinced President Obama and the Democratic Party want to continue down the same road at an accelerated pace. Conservatives think it is time to apply the brakes and perhaps even reverse the direction in which we are proceeding. Few liberals think of themselves as socialists, but many—if not most—of them clearly subscribe to many of the goals and objectives of socialism as described above.

Is President Obama a socialist? If you examine his history, his comments, his actions since becoming President, and his agenda for the future, I think it is clear he is much closer to being a socialist than he is to being a capitalist. You can draw your own conclusions.

What does the future look like for the United States if we continue down the road to socialism? Victor David Hanson is a scholar, college professor, and syndicated columnist who has travelled extensively in Europe and has observed and studied the European form of socialism. He was written that the European form of socialism “closely resembles the model that Obama seeks for America.” According to Hanson, in Europe the “vast majority of citizens lives in apartments, even in smaller towns and villages. Cars are tiny. Prices are higher than in the states; income is lower.” Despite the goals of socialism, Hanson says in Europe “class is firmly entrenched and aristocratic snobbery more pronounced. (We already see that strange symbiosis between socialism for everyone else, capitalism for a few, whether in Michelle’s clothes, the Obama’s mansion, the Kerry fortune, the Edwards compound, the Gore appurtenances, the Clinton speaking cash cow, and too many others to list).”

With regard to Europe, Hanson says, “This is a continent of Tom Daschles, who win by being exempt from the burden of government that they subject on others, and win again by having contacts to sort out government contracts to crony-businesses. My point? The more Europe professes to be egalitarian, the more cynical and conniving the people have become—almost as if the human craving for one’s own property and to make one’s own destiny cannot be denied by the state…”

Hanson also observes, “Socialism surely does not make one happier, or content knowing that the resulting society is somehow more humane or caring. Instead each faction is constantly on the verge of striking against the public good. There are always the bad ‘them’, easy-target public enemies among the rich and aristocratic who need to give away more to the ‘deserving.’” Hanson further says, “I’ve never met a beatific equality-of-result person. They are usually grim and angry warriors determined to right cosmic wrongs, eager to demonize those who ‘have too much’, convinced that the divine ends justify the demonic means.”

Hanson concludes, “The road to socialism is not natural. It must be paved with the hard work of class envy, demonization of the successful, and obfuscation that each new massive spending program that will raise both taxes and deficits…must be passed immediately, without delay, now-or-never to starve off Biblical hunger, plague, and flood. Or else!”

Feeling Sorry for Obama

President Obama has a lot of problems, some of which he inherited and some of which he has created for himself. Almost everyday, I find myself feeling sorry for him. As the saying goes, he always seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

During his campaign for President, Obama promised he would bring a new era of bipartisanship to Washington, D.C. I always had doubts about his sincerity, and I had even more doubts about his ability to fulfill his promise even if he sincerely wanted to do so. It is now clear that bipartisanship is not in the picture. Obama had the misfortune of inheriting Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are two of the most highly partisan politicians in the country. Obama cannot get anything though Congress without dealing with them. I feel sorry for anyone who has to work with these two reprobates.

Obama came into office with a Congress controlled by Democrats. Accordingly, it was assumed he would be able to accomplish anything he wanted. Liberal Democrats were wetting their pants with excitement. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate had been elected President of the United States, and Democrats had gained control of both Houses of Congress. The excitement intensified when the Democrats obtained a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate with the election of a comedian from Minnesota. At long last, the liberal Democrats, which include the vast majority of all Democrats, assumed they would be able to accomplish their agenda of transforming the country into a socialist state. There is only one problem. The Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives by recruiting moderate Democrats to run for Congress in moderate to conservative districts. The strategy worked, but the first goal of these moderate Democrats is to be re-elected, which means they are reluctant to support legislation that is not popular in the districts they represent. Obama likes to blame Republicans for obstructing his agenda, but he could accomplish anything he wanted without Republican support if he could only get all of the members of his own party on the same page. I feel sorry for Obama because of the unrelenting pressure he must feel from the competing interests within the Democratic Party.

Obama inherited a recession, a staggering federal debt, and an annual budget deficit of approximately $455 billion. The current federal indebtedness is approximately $11.8 trillion. Obama’s plans for ending the recession involve increasing this year’s federal deficit to approximately $1.6 trillion and increasing the federal deficit over the next decade by an additional $9 trillion. If anything, these projections will probably end up being too low. David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office and the current President and Chief Executive Officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal last week as saying this year’s federal deficit comes to “$3.4 million a minute, $200 million an hour, $5 billion a day.” Eventually, someone will have to pay for all of this debt. Obama, however, continues to promise he will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize Obama has painted himself into a corner. There is no way he can fulfill his promises without breaking his promises. All politicians, of course, eventually tend to paint themselves into the same corner. Nevertheless, I feel sorry for Obama because he cannot get out of the corner into which he has painted himself without breaching his promises.

Obama inherited two wars—the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. He opposed the war in Iraq from the outset, he opposed President Bush’s strategy for winning the war, and he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq on an accelerated basis if elected President. When Obama assumed the Presidency in January, it appeared the war in Iraq had been won. President Bush’s strategy had worked. Unfortunately, violence is returning to Iraq as the United States turns more responsibility for security over to the Iraqi forces. I feel sorry for Obama because he is in a “no win” situation with regard to the war in Iraq. If all ends well in Iraq, President Bush will and should get the credit. If Iraq returns to violence and becomes a strong ally of Iran, which is likely, Obama will get the blame even if the same thing would have happened under a Republican Administration.

As for the war in Afghanistan, Obama has a huge problem. When running for President, Obama characterized the war in Afghanistan as the “good war” and a war that needed to be fought. He did this in order to convince the public he and his party, despite their well-earned reputation, are not weak on national security. Since assuming the office of President, Obama has continued to support the war in Afghanistan and has referred to it as a “war of necessity.” The problem, of course, is the war in Afghanistan is not going well, and liberals and conservatives alike are beginning to question the wisdom of investing more money and more American lives in a country where violence seems to be a way of life. Again, I feel sorry for Obama because he is in another “no win” situation. If he continues to support the war in Afghanistan with more money and troops, we are likely to be involved in Afghanistan for a very long period of time, and the American voters do not have the patience for long and costly wars, especially when the justification for a war becomes muddier with the passage of time. On the other hand, if Obama withdraws from Afghanistan and leaves the country in a mess, he will have to admit defeat in a war he supported and characterized as a “war of necessity” even after becoming President.

One of Obama’s top priorities is to reform the nation’s health care system. Here again, Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. The liberals who supported Obama and helped him get elected will settle for nothing less than a nationalized health care system. Most members of the public, however, do not want the government to be making their health care decisions. So far, Obama has done a miserable job of selling health care reform. He let the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives put the first reform package on the table, and he then tried to defend the indefensible before he even knew what he was defending. Obama has tried to convince the public he can reduce the cost of health care, expand access to health care, and improve the quality of care, all without increasing the government’s already staggering budget deficit. He wants us to believe he can cut some $500 billion out of the Medicare budget without rationing health care or denying health care benefits to the elderly. Even though the average citizen has a poor understanding of economics, most people are smart enough to understand that Obama’s goals are incompatible.

I feel sorry for Obama because one of his top priorities—health care reform—is in jeopardy. Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for The Washington Post, concludes Obama has lost the trust of the American people because of his illogical arguments for health care reform. Krauthammer wrote, “… Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms. Things got still worse. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president—trust. You can’t say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits—and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.”

Obama is planning a major speech this week in an effort to regain the momentum for health care reform. I don’t know what he will be saying, but it is clear he will anger either the liberal members of his party or the moderate to conservative Democrats whose support he needs in order to pass some form of health care legislation. Obama cannot afford to come up empty handed on the subject of health care reform. Having made a major issue out of the need for health care reform, Obama needs to sign health care legislation into law so he can declare victory regardless of the substance of the legislation.

Another reason I feel sorry for Obama is he is responsible for managing a huge federal bureaucracy even though he has no prior management experience. The truth is that the federal government is so large and so out-of-control that even someone who had successfully managed one of the world’s largest companies would have trouble controlling it. No President in recent memory, if ever, has successfully managed and controlled the federal bureaucracy. Obama clearly cannot and will not be able to do so.

Finally, I feel sorry for Obama because I feel sorry for anyone who has a Messianic complex, which Obama clearly does. Obama is not a humble man. He is self-righteous, arrogant, and egotistical. I believe Obama thinks he is God’s gift to mankind. The inevitable lumps Obama will take during the remainder of his Presidency will be very difficult for a man who thinks he can do no wrong.

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.