Power corrupts, not money

Much has been written and spoken throughout the media these past few days lamenting the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money in exercising their right to free speech. The vast majority of those criticisms have focused exclusively on the effects of the decision, frequently mentioning that it is "bad for democracy."

However, the Supreme Court's duty is to rule on the Constitutionality of a case, not on which outcome the public (or President) deems "best" or most pleasing. I applaud the Court for doing just that.

People may have opinions about how good or bad the effects of the ruling will be for the nation's electoral system, but until they can show how the Supreme Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, their arguments hold no water.

Last night the President called out the Supreme Court in his SOTU address – a move which I found in poor taste. Once again, we had another member of government opposing the ruling based solely on the grounds of its alleged effects. A Constitutional scholar such as President Obama should know the Supreme Court's sole duty of interpreting the Constitution, not making law based on desired outcomes.

Worse yet, the President stated that the ruling "will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Again, even if that were the case, the President has made no attempt to show that that Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, that the First Amendment would have been better protected by a different ruling. But as it turns out, the President was wrong on that assertion anyway. Justice Alito justifiably was miffed at the President's lack of understanding of the case, and the effects of the ruling.

The few critics who actually do try to attack the Court's ruling on Constitutional grounds seem to take issue with the treatment of corporations as "citizens." What they are implying is that rights that apply to a single citizen should not apply to groups of citizens. But it seems to me that any rights we grant to the individual should also apply to a group of collective individuals. If that is not the case, then the floodgates are open to deny the Bill of Rights to every group entity in existence. Good-bye to due process, trial by jury, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That of course is the ultimate extrapolation if we are to deny individual rights – the Bill of Rights – to groups of individuals such as corporations.

In the end, the effects of the ruling boil down to this: Are you more comfortable with corporations, unions, and other groups having the power to freely spend money to speak in the marketplace of ideas and opinions, or with having the government retain the power of who can say what, when, and where with regards to political speech? I know where I fall.

What the Court struck down was a section of the 2002 McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now I ask you this: Has political campaigning gotten better, or worse, since 2002? I believe it's hard to argue things have gotten better. The point is, for two hundred years prior to 2002, campaigns were conducted without tragically ending the republic. Sure, they may frequently leave a bad taste in our mouths; indeed even turn us "off" to politics at times. But they sky did not fall then, and it won't now.

The real problem with money in politics is that government has too much power, thus encouraging the very lobbying and influence peddling we all despise. As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

As long as the American people continue to vote in big government career politicians beholden to special interests, we will continue to reap what we sew. It's time to wake up and realize there are alternatives.

Say WHAT???

This past week contained no shortage of examples of the ignorance and stupidity that causes so many of us to be turned off by politics these days. Whether you are left, right, libertarian, or somewhere else on the political spectrum, no doubt there was something said last week by someone that made you cringe. I can't decide on the worst statement, so I'll just list them here and let you be the judge. Here are the entrants:

Pat Robertson: "They [the Haitians] got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Seriously Pat – "true story"?

Rush Limbaugh: "Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there.'

Rush Limbaugh (again): "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."

Yes, we have Rush. And if you want to argue federal policy on foreign aid there is a time and place for that. But when a nation is in crisis and people are dying by the minute, making a statement that suggests to your listeners that they should not donate to Haitian relief organizations is not just ignorant and cold – it's just plain stupid.

Ed Schultz (liberal radio host): "If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. Yeah that's right – I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are."

Just to make sure he was clear, Mr. Schultz started off his Monday program with an apology: "I misspoke on Friday. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times, that's what I'd do."

Classy.

Anthony Weiner (New York Democrat), speaking regarding the fate of the health care bill if Scott Brown wins the MA Senate race: "We're going to have to finish this bill and then stall the swearing-in as long as possible."

Boy, that "change of tone" we were promised in Washington is almost palpable now, isn't it?

Sarah Palin, looking like a deer in the headlights on the Glenn Beck show when Beck asked her who her favorite founding father was: "All of them."

Hmmm... Now where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, when Katie Couric asked her on the campaign trail which newspapers she reads.

Danny Glover, blaming the Haitian quake on global warming: "I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happened to Haiti is the threat that could happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. They're all in peril because of global warming, they're all in peril because of climate change and all of this.... When we look back at what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?"

No, Danny, I really, really don't.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC: "In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

Very constructive Keith. Should win a lot of people over who disagree with you. What was that saying again about catching bees, and honey…?

The Marxist-Leninist.com, regarding the U.S. military's relief efforts in Haiti: "The U.S. military's mission is to preserve the reactionary social order for U.S. corporations and to protect the wealthy few. [They are just] worrying about maintaining their military might."

Bingo. Don't be fooled by the marines handing out food and water to disaster victims. It's all just an evil ploy.

George Bush, while raising money for Haitian quake relief: "Just send your cash. One of the things [former President Clinton] and I will do is to make sure your money is spent wisely."

Don't get me wrong – no matter what you think of either of them, I think it's great that both Bush and Clinton are out there trying to raise money for relief. Seriously. But still, I couldn't help notice the terrible irony in President Bush promising to spend my cash "wisely."

I'm not big into ripping into other people for their statements, or mis-statements – God knows I've said enough stupid stuff in my life. After all, we're all human. But when I saw the onslaught of ignorance and silliness I saw over this past week, I simply couldn't let it go by without some commentary.

Thanks for reading.

Health care, the Amish, and the story of Valentine Byler

It seems it's taken as a given these days that individuals in society could not successfully navigate life's challenges without at least some government assistance. After all, isn't that what Social Security, Medicare, and the current health care proposals are all about? It would thus seem a near impossibility to find a non-wealthy segment of our society that is getting by without government assistance. And yet we can do just that. I speak of course of the Amish.

The Amish have a religious opposition to commercial insurance, as well as an opposition to accepting money from government welfare programs. Yet you do not see a crisis of lack of medical care in the Amish community. According to one group of Amish bishops, "It has been our Christian concern from birth of our church group to supply those of our group who have a need, financial or otherwise." And according to Amish Country News, "the care of the elderly is seen as the responsibility of the family and community, not the government." The Amish pay for all medical costs themselves.

So the Amish won't purchase insurance and won't accept welfare. But isn't that exactly what Social Security, Medicare, and ObamaCare are by definition? True enough, and that's why – after a long fought battle (that is nicely summarized here) – the Amish are exempt from both Social Security and Medicare taxes and benefits. And, as I learned on the news this morning, from ObamaCare too.

The Amish's fight for exemption from these programs was not without resistance from the government. With the passage of Social Security, the government was insisting that the Amish buy into a program and accept assistance which they did not want – and were personally and religiously opposed to.

The fight culminated in 1960, when the IRS forcibly seized three horses from Amishman Valentine Byler while he was out plowing his field for spring planting, and sold them at auction to satisfy Byler's $308.96 in unpaid Social Security taxes. That's right – Mr. Byler's sole means of subsistence were forcibly confiscated from him, in order to ensure the government could care for him later in life – care which he did not want, or need.

A public relations disaster for the government ensued. The New York Herald Tribune editorialized, "What kind of 'welfare' is it that takes a farmer's horses away at spring plowing time in order to dragoon a whole community into a 'benefit' scheme it neither needs nor wants, and which offends its deeply held religious scruples?" The Ledger-Star in Norfolk, Virginia said the event marked "a milestone in the passing of freedom – the freedom of people to live their lives undisturbed by their government so long as they lived disturbing no others. It was a freedom the country once thought important."

The government finally gave in, and granted the Amish an exemption from Social Security. And when Medicare was passed in 1965, a line was inserted into the bill exempting the Amish from that program too. Now, with ObamaCare on the cusp of being passed, we learn the Amish will be exempted from that as well.

Valentine Byler's story is as clear an example as there can be of government forcibly taking away personal liberty – the ability of one to live their life as they see fit. But the most important lesson to take away from this entire saga is that it debunks the myth of the necessity of cradle-to-grave government welfare for our nation's citizens. Life is not easy, and sometimes people need help. The Amish have proven that help can be provided absent government intrusion. As one Amishman was quoted as saying in the November 1962 Reader's Digest: "Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order."

Is that what we going to let that happen to our nation?

I’m part of the problem

That's right, I admit it. But in my defense I'm only responding to incentives just as any other human being would. And I don't feel guilty - after all, when something is "free" I tend to maximize my use of it, just like you. I'm talking about health care here, and I have a little story to demonstrate.

About three weeks ago I quickly developed a good size growth on the floor of my mouth. I called my doctor, and, after agreeing to give it a few days to see if it disappeared, made an appointment to see him.

At the appointment he put me at ease regarding the cancer issue, and told me he thought it was just a cyst, and that I should schedule an appointment with an ENT to get it removed. I scheduled the next available appointment two weeks down the road, and resigned myself to walking around with this small grape in my mouth for the next few weeks over the Holidays.

Fortunately, over that two week span the growth slowly but progressively got smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing almost entirely by the day before my appointment. Which brings me to the part about incentives.

What is one to do when they schedule an appointment with their doctor to have an unusual symptom checked out, but that symptom disappears before the appointment? I can tell you what I did, and why I did it – and why that makes me part of the problem.

Rather than cancelling my appointment, I went in to see my doctor anyway. You see, I'm fortunate and have pretty good health insurance through my wife's job. There was no cost to me to go to this appointment, other than time. Since it had taken awhile to get the appointment, and since I wasn't a hundred percent convinced that the symptom would not reappear, I figured what the heck, I'll go talk with the doc anyway just in case. And as it turns out, the doc did nothing but give me some ideas of what that lump might have been, tell me it's nothing to worry about, and to call him if it ever returns.

That appointment was not necessary for me to keep. But I had no incentive not to keep it. I had no financial interest in the transaction at all – after all, someone else was paying for it. Why not keep the appointment and get checked out, just in case?

Now, I've long argued that high deductible catastrophic loss insurance plans coupled with health savings accounts are one of the best ways to rein in costs, and thus make health care more affordable and accessible. If I had had such a plan, and was paying the several hundred dollars for that appointment today out of my own pocket, I can guarantee you I would have cancelled that appointment. My financial stake in the transaction would have been high enough to force me to think long and hard about how necessary it was for me to see the doctor that day, and I would have had a strong incentive to keep my money in my pocket, saving it for a potentially more urgent health issue down the line.

This is why I've always said that incentives matter, and why our current system whereby most people have "health coverage" as opposed to true "health insurance", where their plans cover every small health issue they encounter as opposed to just the catastrophic issues, is part of the problem. I was only responding to the incentives built into that system.

Now, my little story certainly didn't affect health care costs for anyone else overall – after all, it's just one minor instance. But when you consider that potentially thousands of other people made the same decision as me today, responding to the same incentives, you see how it quickly creates an overall macro-level cost-containment problem. I'm certainly not naïve enough to believe that correcting this incentive structure would magically cure all of our health care woes, but it most definitely is a big piece of the puzzle.

Somewhere today some people who truly needed to see a doctor didn't, because they couldn't afford it. And some (like me) who really didn't need to see a doctor did, because they didn't have to pay for it, thus driving up costs even further for the first group. The only way to change that defect in the system is to change the structure of the system itself, and put more consumers in charge of more of their own health care dollars. It's unfortunate that the current plans in Congress only seek to take our current poorly structured system, expand and subsidize it further, and force people buy into it. Good intentions do not guarantee good results. We're going to learn that lesson the hard way.

What children see matters

My daughter has been watching me. Shave, that is. She loves to watch me shave in the morning, and frequently requests some of my extra accessories so she can "shave" along with me. Thus was the impetus for my purchase of a $5 child shaving kit from Target for Christmas for her this year.

So we've shaved together three times now since Christmas, and this morning I was noticing she was doing everything exactly as I was. When I shaved with the grain, she shaved with the grain. When I shaved against the grain, she shaved against the grain. When I rinsed my razor, she rinsed her razor. You get the picture.

But it dawned on me – What else is my three year old watching me do, and learning behavior from? Does she watch me as I struggle to hang a picture and grumble under my breath as I slam the hammer down? Does she watch me as I cuss at my computer because I can't get a program to work? And does she watch me as I complain about the incompetent driver ahead of me on the road?

The truth is, she is watching all these things, and more. And she is learning from it. So just what does all this have to do with government?

We currently have it within our power to solve most of our societal problems. But instead we increasingly choose to defer responsibility and rely on government to provide the solution instead. The problem with that is twofold.

First, I believe history has shown that government is not an efficient nor capable institution for solving major social problems. Private charities, where the providers are much more in tune with the local community, and where the recipients are much more accountable to their providers, are a much more efficient mechanism for providing lasting long-term relief to those in need.

Secondly, when we abdicate our responsibility to help our neighbors to the government, what is that telling our children? Remember, they are watching. Everything. I'm concerned about any message that essentially tells children to rely on others to solve our most pressing social problems. And that is exactly what we do when we fail to take action ourselves, let liberty yield, and wait for government to take over.

You may desire more affordable and available health care for your fellow man. But when is the last time your child witnessed you donating time or money to one of the many private charities that provides just that, rather than simply petitioning the government for universal coverage?

You may desire more jobs and higher wages for those out of work or having difficulty making ends meet. But when is the last time your child witnessed you take a risk at starting a business, or over-tipping an excellent waitress, rather than simply writing your legislators to increase the minimum wage?

You may want a better education for our nation's children. But when was the last time your child witnessed you hands-on helping out in their classroom, rather than simply requesting that the government throw more money at the problem?

In short, are you a "doer" or a "petitioner"? Because clearly the world needs more of the former and less of the latter.

I am not making accusations here, nor pointing fingers – for I would be the first one I would need to indict. What I am trying to point out is that (a) because of our liberty we have it within our power to solve a lot of our problems without the need for government involvement, and (b) that we are sending the wrong message to our children when they witness more forfeiture of liberty and offloading of problems to government than actual direct action on our part to solve those problems ourselves. And liberty – once forfeited – is often lost forever.

That's my New Year's Resolution this year – to make sure my children witness responsibility and true compassion in our home, rather than passing of the buck and forfeiture of liberty. I urge you to ask yourself this question: "What will my children witness in my home this year?" The answer is immensely important. Because I guarantee you – they are watching.