Our Proud Flag Needs No Protection

It’s been seventeen years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment and the push to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing flag desecration began.  And yet, despite our inability to enact such an amendment, I have not personally witnessed a single flag-burning in that entire seventeen year period.  That’s probably true of most of us.

That alone should be enough to convince us that we need no such amendment.  In fact, that our flag can fly safely without the need of legal protection speaks volumes about our respect for the flag, and more tellingly, of our love and respect for the values and system that flag represents.

But the push to amend our Constitution – and in the process desecrate the very values that make the flag worthy of such respect – is underway once again.  It is an understandable emotional response, but sadly misguided.  For if there is any right that empowers us as private citizens in shaping our federal government, it is our right to speak our minds freely in criticizing that government, should it go too far.

Some argue that flag desecration is not speech, and in a strict, literal sense they are correct.  But we have to ask why someone would deliberately burn a flag if not to make a political statement?  And is it not protecting political speech, however distasteful it may be, that is whole point of our First Amendment guarantee?  If we are to be the democratic role model for the entire world, when such questions of rights arise we should always err on the side of liberty.

To be sure, many veterans are adamant about the need to protect our flag.  For those who have fought on foreign battlefields our flag represents everything they fought for.  It can be difficult to separate the symbol from the substance, but separate it we must.  For if we are willing to sacrifice the rights and freedoms that have made the flag such a powerful symbol, those who have fought and died will have died in vain.  I can think of no greater insult to those who have given their lives for freedom.  Conversely, there is no greater statement we can make to those who would desecrate the flag than to ignore them and allow the American flag to fly defiantly in all its unprotected glory.

Worst President Since Hoover?

Might the man from Texas be the worst president our nation has seen since Herbert Hoover?

To be fair, he came into office with the odds stacked against him. His predecessor was a youthful, charismatic leader whose following seemed more like that of a rock star than a politician. And the nation was coming off years of peace and prosperity. In many respects, he had nowhere to go but down. Nonetheless, consider the following:

He took office under circumstances that some consider suspicious, even treacherous.

Many argue that he cynically used goodwill the nation bestowed upon him in the wake of national tragedy to lead us into an unpopular and unwinnable war.

He expanded the scope of the federal government in ways no one could have foreseen, adding new roles for everything from education to Medicare, even as the cost of the war spiraled out of control. Many feel his final legacy will be one of bloated government and fiscal bankruptcy.

Furthermore, his determination to do things his way, combined with disdain for detractors, has earned him a reputation for being petulant and insular. Not exactly traits we might hope for in a president.

So how does all this make you feel? Some are probably outraged, while others are shouting a big, old, “Amen, brother.” But what if I said that I’m talking about Lyndon Johnson, not George W. Bush?

Interesting, huh? Many of the things people despise about George Bush are the same things many didn’t like about LBJ. Yet, I’d be willing to make a sizable wager that there is very little overlap among the two groups of detractors. Why is that? Is it because we agree more with one man’s policies than the other’s? Or is it because we identify more with one man’s party?

To be sure, plenty of liberals turned against LBJ as his term wore on, just as many conservatives have come to question George W. Bush. Still, the sad truth is that too many people fall in line behind one politician or another for no reason other than he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. But we do ourselves a disservice when we ascribe more importance to party than to policy, because we ignore what works and what doesn’t.

For example, many believe the U.S. prospered under Bill Clinton because he raised taxes, a liberal approach. Yet he also signed off on free trade, welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes, all considered conservative ideas. So was it liberal or conservative policies that spurred the economy and eliminated deficits? To too many Americans, it doesn’t matter. But it should, because it’s policy, not party that counts.

We all – left and right (myself included) – should spend a bit more time critiquing our own beliefs and biases and less time blindly defending them. Conversely, we should consider the merits of opposing viewpoints rather than dismissing them out-of-hand. Such critical thinking is necessary if we hope to meet the challenges we face in the years ahead. But we won’t be able to do that until we put less emphasis on Right and Left and more on right and wrong.

Beware Easy Healthcare Fixes

It is generally accepted that we have a problem with healthcare in this country, but we had better make sure we fully understand the nature of that problem before we start enacting solutions that may exacerbate it. Otherwise we could find ourselves with a patchwork of well-meaning but ill-conceived legislation similar to the so-called Walmart healthcare bill enacted in Maryland last week. For those unfamiliar with the new law, Maryland now requires any employer with more than 10,000 employees within the state to contribute at least eight percent of its payroll cost to health benefits. If they do not, the difference between what they pay and the eight percent cutoff must be paid into a state fund. Not coincidentally, Walmart is the only company affected by this legislation. This legislation is dangerous on several levels. For one, though only Walmart is currently affected, it opens the door for expansion of the concept to include smaller employers and encourages similar measures in other states. While that may sound good to some, we must keep in mind that this unfunded mandate is essentially a tax on payroll. And one thing we know to be true is that we get less of what we tax. Thus, we’ll get less payroll – either through lower wages or fewer jobs. (If you disagree, consider that the arguments for higher cigarette or gasoline taxes include discouraging their consumption). The irony is that we could actually end up with more unemployed people who have no insurance and wind up on state Medicaid rolls – precisely the opposite of what the legislation is designed to do. But another flaw in the legislation is that it treats all large employers as identical. But that is not true. For example, Walmart and Microsoft are both big companies. But whereas Microsoft earns a profit of approximately $210,000 per employee, Walmart earns only $8,300. Even fellow discount retailer Costco earns more than twice as much per employee as Walmart. Why does this matter? Because it means that not all employers are equally capable of paying for increased benefits. We look at Walmart’s size and assume it has bottomless pockets, but their profit per employee leaves relatively little margin for additional expenses per employee. Legislation like that passed by Maryland further reduces that margin, making Walmart less competitive in the marketplace vis-a-vis competitors with greater margins. But Walmart is not the only company with thin profits per employee. It is also true of far smaller companies, which brings us back to the concern that this may be just the opening salvo in the attempt to get employers to shoulder more of the healthcare burden. This legislation passed largely because only one employer was affected. That limited the lobbying effort against it. Next time, the state can go for a lower employee threshold without worrying that Walmart will oppose it since they would now benefit from having their competitors face the same requirements. It’s a divide-and-conquer approach that could be devastating for businesses on less sound financial footings. Ironically, it could be the Walmarts of the world who end up the real winners, as small businesses struggle under the burden of increased state spending mandates. Healthcare is among the greatest challenges we face in the years ahead, but that challenge is not faced solely by the uninsured among us. Our employers also face a crisis in paying for the insurance they already provide. Legislating coverage is not a solution, but a mere band-aid that could do more harm than good. We need a serious discussion about costs, technology, insurance and expectations if we hope to avoid a real crisis. It’s a discussion I plan to pursue in the weeks ahead, but I fear there are no easy answers. Legislation like that passed in Maryland mistakenly leads us to believe there are.