CRITICAL FAILURE TO HAWK, HAGGLE AND DICKER CAUSED ECONOMIC CRASH: REPORT

YOUR ECONOMY TODAY

In a groundbreaking report issued yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission conclusively revealed the reasons behind America's persistent economic woes.

"Basically, sellers are not hawking, peddling, pushing, scalping and mongering enough," explained Commissioner Jon Leibowitz.

"But sellers aren't the only ones to blame," he continued. "Buyers, too, have critically failed to haggle, bargain, dicker and lay out cash. Combined, these selling and buying behaviors led to today's catastrophic economic climate."

Economic experts expressed shock over the report. "For several years now, we thought that the Great Recession resulted from risky loans, rising debt levels and an imploding housing market. Now, however, we see the real reasons for our hard times: A colossal failure to hawk, hock and dicker," wrote eminent economist Paul Krugman. "This is really mind-blowing news."

Commissioner Leibowitz pointed out that economic recovery will not happen until people understand why the economy failed in the first place.

"People need to see that we face a multifaceted problem. We are not just talking about mongering and haggling. True, we need car salesmen to monger more and first-time homebuyers to dicker more. But just a little mongering won't cut it. We need full-scale mongering and hawking, as well as nonstop dickering to get moving in the right direction. Americans need to start driving bargains again; and that means that sellers need to start stepping up their hawking game, too."

President Obama praised the Commissioner's report. "I'm glad we have a sense about where we need to go with our economy," he said. "For all this time, we've been quarreling about stimulus, job creation and spending limits. But now we see that what we really need to do is get people dickering again. I'm confident that Americans will be able to put country before party and really start mongering, pushing, scalping and laying out cash. This is America. We have a long history of haggling, bargaining, hawking and peddling. We have been doing these things since our earliest colonial history. We know how to hawk and haggle. We even know how to hock and pawn. This is the greatest country in the world because we have the greatest peddlers and dickerers. It's time to find our stride again."

According to the Commissioner's report, economic progress depends on more than increased mongering, haggling, bargaining and hawking. Instead, other factors will play a role, namely, behaviors within the financial services industry.

In analyzing the Recession's causes, the report also noted that reduced mongering, haggling, bargaining, hawking, pushing and scalping were matched by rampantly negative bank practices, including chicanery, hoodwinking, bamboozling, hornswoggling, rooking and wheedling. The report also observed that banks repeatedly pulled contractual wool over customers' eyes between 2004 and the market collapse in 2008.

"Put simply, our financial crisis involved unprecedented hornswoggling," Mr. Leibowitz explained. "While our free market economy has always provided ample room for hoodwinking and bamboozling, banking practices between 2004 and 2008 saw a meteoric increase in hornswoggling and wheedling. Combined with lower levels of consumer dickering, haggling and mongering, this created a perfect economic storm. We just couldn't handle it."

Despite the gloomy analysis, Mr. Leibowitz expressed hope for the future. "Understanding a crisis is necessary to solving it. Since 2009, the Federal Government has taken steps to eradicate rooking in the financial industry, and data show that wheedling has fallen dramatically. The Commission has also set up a special department to decisively root out hornswoggling. Once we eliminate that, we are confident that consumers will return to robust dickering and mongering levels."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner concurred with the Commission's findings on the financial industry. "As a former Wall Street banker, I know that hornswoggling was the straw the broke the camel's back in 2008. When we eliminate it, I am certain that the banking industry will return to customary--and acceptable--hoodwinking and bamboozling practices."

Republicans disagreed with the Commission's analysis, claiming that hornswoggling is absolutely vital to job creation.

"I come from a background in business, and I can tell you that uninhibited hornswoggling is what made us strong," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "You can't run a business or make money if you tie a manager's hands behind his back. In business, you need the freedom to hoodwink, rook, bamboozle, and most of all hornswoggle in order to deliver the highest quality goods and services. And if a business doesn’t make money, it can't create jobs."

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann objected to the report on liberty grounds. "We're a nation of liberty and laws, and you can't take away liberty from people," she explained. "People in business need more liberty than most, because they're job creators. And to be a job creator, you need all the liberty you can get. That includes the liberty to hornswoggle, hoodwink, rook and bamboozle. When government starts taking away those liberties, it's trampling our free enterprise spirit. The bottom line is that hornswoggling creates jobs and pays a lot of salaries. And it's flat-out tyranny when the Federal government says it's going to take it away."

Texas Governor Rick Perry disagreed with the Commission's findings in less abstract terms. "Look, I don't believe a word that comes from any Federal agency, least of all a Federal agency controlled by President Obama. It was President Obama who made the economy bad, and it's President Obama who has to pay for it. Simple as that."

Overall, markets responded well to the Commission's report. The DOW rose 1.9% on data indicating a modest rise in dickering, a strong rise in haggling, an encouraging rise in hawking and a remarkable rise in bamboozling.

For their part, consumers expressed hope for the future. "If all it takes for me to me to help the economy is to haggle and dicker a little more, I'm willing to do my part," said freelance handyman Willie Williams of Ozone Park, New York.

"PLEASE BOMB US," OBAMA PLEADS

NEWS FLASH

Exasperated following months of fruitless partisan gridlock in Washington, President Barack Obama has officially requested foreign aid to reverse America's economic downturn.

"Please bomb us," the President begged world leaders during a live television broadcast.

Noting that a foreign attack or invasion is the only way to divert public attention from a stagnant economy and despicable political infighting in Washington, President Obama took his case to the world stage.

"We cannot create jobs or spur domestic development unless we get the American people to rally against a devious foreign enemy," the President remarked. "I've tried my ass off to make economic changes peacefully, but I've broken my head against the wall one too many times. We need someone to bomb us ASAP."

President Obama observed that Americans need to hate someone other than him in order to balance the budget, reduce unemployment, overhaul health care and curtail spending.

"I've tried to solve our problems by letting the American people hate me," the President explained. "But the simple fact is that the American people need to hate a foreigner in order to really get the economy rolling again. The bottom line, my friends, is that we're never going to get below 9.2% unemployment unless one of you motherfuckers steps up to the plate and bombs our ass. Please, if you care about America, attack one of our naval bases without delay. We've got tons of them all over the world. Take your pick. It's on us."

President Obama appeared confident that his plan would work. He cited historical precedent to support his position.

"Look, FDR did all he could to reduce unemployment in the 1930s with domestic spending. But he didn't really beat the Great Depression until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and people started really hating the Japs. And George W. Bush wasn't going anywhere until Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center and people started really hating Muslims. Once that happened, Bush got to do whatever the hell he wanted. I am confident that if you would be so generous as to launch missiles against a military installation of your choosing, America could easily solve its economic woes."

President Obama insisted that his plan was not just another greedy American power grab. "I understand that many of you may suspect a selfish motive in my request for an attack on us. I assure you, however, that if you bomb us, you, too, will benefit. After all, by bombing us and saving our economy, global markets will strengthen. When the US economy thrives, so does the world economy. Thus, if you bomb us, your economy, too, will improve. And everyone loves good economic times."

"True, we might flatten a couple of your cities or overthrow your government. But all benefits have their price," the President concluded.

President Obama also pointed out that favoritism played no role in his decisionmaking. "America does not discriminate," he said. "While some of you might think that we only go to war with Muslims, brown people or communists, the time for stereotypes is over. We are perfectly willing to allow Caucasians to bomb us, too. We just need somebody to help us out."

Speaking directly to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the President pleaded: "Come on, Angie, blow up one of our air force bases. They're right on your territory. You have no idea how much that would help. Please, I'm begging you."

Despite the President's confidence in his plan, Republican leaders remained unconvinced.

"It wouldn't work," responded Tea Party candidate Michelle Bachmann. "We won't rescue our economy without completely eliminating all government spending and abolishing taxation once and for all. If an enemy attacks us, we'll have to spend money and raise taxes, so I can't support the President's plan."

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney agreed. "No way. If the President drags us into another war, that just means more job-killing regulations. It doesn't matter if we're the ones who get attacked. War means regulations, and regulations kill jobs."

Sarah Palin was more specific in her response to the President's plan. "Nope, wouldn't help," she said. "To fight a war, you need government. And we're not going to solve our problems until we get rid of all government for good."

For their part, world leaders were split on Obama's request. Fidel Castro said he would love to attack the United States, but that he wasn't willing to expose his people to retaliation that would devastate his country.

Vladimir Putin praised the President for his wisdom, but refused to commit Russia to an invasion because he knew war with a foreign enemy would strengthen America, just as Obama predicted.

"Their own economy will kill them. There's no need to hasten that by risking Russian troops," Putin concluded.

Chinese Premier Hu Jintao summarily rejected the President's request. "Absolutely not. If we attack you, we'd never collect all the money you owe us."

As of press time, President Obama still held out hope that other powers--such as Turkey, Uzbekistan or Somalia--might decide to attack the United States.

TERROR FART SHUTS SEVENTH AVENUE : PANIC IN NEW YORK

NEWS FLASH

Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer has just learned that authorities in New York shut down a major city thoroughfare after a Muslim allegedly farted.

Details remain sketchy. It is not known who farted, nor whether the fart constituted "use of weapons of mass destruction" under applicable federal anti-terror laws. It is not even known whether the fart caused any appreciable damage to the surrounding area.

Nonetheless, officials are not taking any chances. Deputy NYPD Police Commissioner B. Leonard Pfurzfinder called the alleged terror fart a "serious attempt" to sow chaos in New York. He warned the public to "keep your eyes and noses open for flatulating Muslims."

Mr. Pfurzfinder gave a press conference shortly after the incident: "I wish to confirm that the Police Department--in cooperation with State and federal law enforcement--have closed Seventh Avenue following the reported emission of terrorist intestinal gas near 35th Street. At approximately 7:45 AM today, a woman named Cathleen Summers passed a man with a long black beard wearing a skull cap and a long white gown. According to Ms. Summers, 'he looked like Osama bin Laden.' As she passed the man at the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 35th Street, Ms. Summers heard a very loud noise. 'It was definitely a fart,' she said. Within a moment following the noise, Ms. Summers also smelled a rancid odor in her vicinity. 'It must have come from the fart,' she told responding officers. She also mentioned that pedestrians gasped in horror when they smelled the fart; they fled in all directions. Pandemonium ensued. One man collapsed from inhaling the fumes. Another man said the 'sound of the fart' broke his iPad® digital reading device. Ms. Summers also reported that the bearded man did not panic after the fart; he surreptitiously moved away down 35th Street."

Mr. Pfurzfinder continued: "We are fortunate that no fatalities resulted from the fart. But we cannot let our guard down. Considering the evidence before us, we must conclude that this fart constitutes a serious terrorist attack on American soil. True, the fart did not cause much damage. But it shows that there are men who look like Osama bin Laden in the United States who can emit toxic odors. Worse, it shows that men with beards and white gowns can infiltrate major American cities, eat gas-producing foods and subject everyday Americans to deadly flatulence. We can be glad that no Americans died in this brazen gas assault on New York City. But we must painfully acknowledge that the War on Terror--especially gaseous fart terror--is far from over."

Mr. Pfurzfinder stressed that Americans must do their part to battle terrorism in all its forms: "We salute Ms. Summers for immediately calling authorities after she heard and smelled the enemy fart. And we also salute Ms. Summers for recognizing that suspicious activity is not always visible. In fact, terrorism does not just affect the eyes; it affects all the senses. Since 2001, the NYPD has admonished New Yorkers to report suspicious activity with the slogan: 'See something; say something.' But that admonishment does not encompass all possible terrorist threats. Terror does not limit itself to visible phenomena. As this case shows, terror can be heard and smelled, too. In that light, we hereby modify our slogan to include all the senses: 'See something, hear something, smell something, taste something or feel something--say something.' Although we recognize that some New Yorkers may report things that do not turn out to be terror threats, we believe that the extra caution is worth it. An old woman, for instance, may feel a spider crawling on her neck while she sleeps. She may believe she is under tactile terrorist attack. She might even call police, wailing: "I felt something, so I'm saying something." Yet fielding a few misguided 911 calls is a small price to pay to avoid another 9/11."

Concerning the general terrorist threat level, Mr. Pfuzfinder elaborated: "We are on edge. Within the last two weeks, Muslim agents have tried to blow up Times Square. In the ensuing days, authorities closed down Times Square several times after citizens reported 'suspicious packages' on various street corners. Those packages turned out to contain ham sandwiches, bottled water and cheap novels; but the threat remains. It remains true that Muslims want to kill us. Today's fart incident represents yet another attempt to target America this month. We are in the crosshairs. The Muslims not only want to destroy significant targets in spectacular attacks; they also want to wreak panic by dispersing toxic farts among everyday people who just want to get to work in the morning. That is truly terrifying--and we are working to stop it."

Mr. Pfurzfinder did not specify how the NYPD plans to address farting Muslims in the future. Still, Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C. quickly jumped on the news.

"Today's incident in New York just goes to show that President Obama is not doing enough to stop terror," declared Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). "This is the price we pay for the President's misguided decision to 'understand' Muslims. We cannot afford to understand these people. They want choke us on the nastiest farts you can possibly imagine. We cannot have a 'dialogue' with people who are out to drown us in farts. Put simply, we need to stop talking and start attacking Pakistan, which is where this fart guy is probably from. If we don't, the next fart is going to really hurt somebody."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) echoed Mr. Cornyn's call for increased action against Pakistan. "I have it from reliable sources that al-Qaeda is training operatives to produce massive amounts of flatulence in their own bodies. They call it 'the natural approach.' CIA infiltrators have shown me shocking pictures of masked men sitting in desert training camps eating goat cheese, falafel, kebab and raw onions in terrifying amounts. We are blind to the truth if we assume that this New York fart suspect did not receive al-Qaeda digestive terror training in Pakistan. That is why we must attack Pakistan now. I refuse to see a single American killed by a fart we could have prevented."

In a statement on the issue, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) shied away from foreign policy assertions. "No matter what we do abroad, I say we need better domestic legislation to punish Muslims who fart. I have already drawn up a draft bill that expands the definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' to include 'the intentional, reckless, negligent or inadvertent expulsion of intestinal gas by a person who is a Muslim, however slight or inaudible.' Ignorance is no defense. I define 'Muslim' as 'any person not a Christian' or 'any person with a suspicious looking beard, unless he is from Texas; but such exception does not apply to African-Americans with beards, or any female, regardless of State residence or race.' If we enforce this law, we will bring digestive terrorists to justice and protect Americans."

President Obama's Attorney General--Eric H. Holder, Jr.--urged a more circumspect approach to the Muslim fart menace. "Our investigation into this matter has just begun. We still need to determine whether the man who farted did so with terroristic intent. This is a legal inquiry: Only farts expelled with a specific intent to terrorize are currently forbidden under existing law. This administration is committed to law. We refuse to indulge speculation. We also refuse to yield to public hysteria surrounding the incident. Until we have reliable evidence, we cannot commit to prosecuting this suspect as a terrorist. For the moment, he is simply a 'person of interest' who farted on Seventh Avenue on May 17, 2010. We understand that our approach may disappoint those who assume all Muslim farts to be terror farts. But respect for the rule of law--and for basic fairness in the administration of justice--dictates that we assemble all the facts before we conclude that digestive terror occurred in New York today."

Rush Limbaugh denounced Holder's statement as "rubbish:" "When a Muslim farts, it's terror. I don't give a shit what the law says."

New York's Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg emphasized that Muslim farting is not good for the city economy. "The thing that upsets me most is that this fart closed down Seventh Avenue. There are a lot of really big stores and businesses on Seventh Avenue, including Ernst & Young and roughly 75 Starbucks Coffee houses. This fart caused people to miss work and lose out on pay. It also caused people to refrain from shopping and going to Starbucks. That is not good for New York. So whether or not we conclude that this Muslim emitted a terror fart, he has already terrorized New York's economy. And I don't like it when corporations can't do business."

At present, investigators are searching high and low for the man who allegedly farted near Ms. Summers this morning. Officials expect to reopen Seventh Avenue sometime this afternoon, depending on the FBI's determination that residual Muslim fart fumes have sufficiently dissipated to permit vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

President Obama issued the following statement after receiving word about the incident: "Our hearts go out to the families and to those affected. We will not tolerate digestive terror and we will not shirk our responsibilities. We are a resilient people. No matter how thick the fart cloud that hangs over us, we will persevere."

PROPERTY OWNERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST DISABLED AMERICANS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Mr. Irwin D. Gallant, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lexington Property Management Group LLC (A Delaware Limited Liability Company specializing in commercial property rentals to Fortune 500 companies in cities across the Nation); Harvard Business School (M.B.A. summa cum laude 1990); Avid Jogger; Amateur clockmaker and watch collector; Christian; aficionado of numerous activities requiring undamaged arms and legs.

Hey you. Yeah, you: The fat fuck in the wheelchair. Get a goddamn move on it. I've got a whole line of customers trying to get into the store, and there you are struggling to maneuver your fucking lard cart through that double door. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know you're disabled. But it's about damn time for property owners like me to tell you what we really feel: We can't fucking stand your lame asses.

How many times have property owners felt this way? They all do--every day. Disabled people are simply not fast enough to keep up with the pace of business in America. They frustrate normal people with functioning legs who are just trying to go to work, buy a few groceries and get home before 10 PM. And how much money have property owners spent trying to accommodate these worthless crippled fuckers? Let me give you a ballpark: BILLIONS!@!@! And I'll tell you another thing: Building expensive ramps for drooling fucktards with canes has driven numerous enterprising Americans straight out of business.

America faces worse threats than foreign terrorism. As a property owner and businessman, I can say without hesitation that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is the greatest threat to liberty this Nation has ever encountered. Fuck the Times Square bomber; he didn't hurt anyone. But the ADA hurts honest business owners every day by requiring them to build costly additions to their properties on their own nickel. And when business owners hurt, the whole country hurts.

Think about it: The Red Lobster on West 41st Street could have hired 100 dishwashers and 50 waiters in 2009 if it hadn't had to install a freaking "supplemental dumbwaiter" to lift paralyzed midgets from the dining room to the balcony. So in the end, a few lazy fuckheads got to eat the fried shrimp special in 2009, while 150 people lost their jobs. Fair trade? I think not.

Liberty is about owning property and doing whatever you want with it. Liberty is also about making as much money as you can from your property without worrying about other people. But the ADA forces property owners to do things with their property that they'd rather not do. It forces them to accommodate people on their premises who do not help them make more money. This violates property owners' liberty. It also robs them blind by compelling them to build doorways, elevators, extra exits and conveyor belts all over the place. That shit is expensive. And when business owners spend money on useless shit like that, it prevents them from paying out dividends, hiring people or opening new locations.

Put simply, the ADA is a terrorist law because it tramples liberty. In fact, most business owners would simply prefer to die in a car bomb explosion than watch their companies go bankrupt after wasting all their money on unnecessary elevators. Castrating a business' economic potential is just as terroristic as slamming airplane into a skyscraper. The result is the same: People lose their jobs--and their lives. And both are scary.

When we reflect on just how much it costs to comply with the ADA, we must ask ourselves: For what? What do we get for destroying businesses and bankrupting property owners? What do we get for boosting unemployment and dampening our prosperity? A society in which crippled fucktards can wheel into any building they want to spend their pension money.

I know it's "American" to say that everyone deserves an "equal opportunity" to see the Yankees or eat at Red Lobster. But who really gives a flying fuck about some paraplegic kid with a tube down his throat? OK, so we build him his own goddamn elevator and his own goddamn entrance door. Once he's in, does he spend money? Maybe his mother buys him a candy bar, a hot dog or some shit… oh wait, he eats through a tube. Never mind. What I mean is that crippled fucktards don't usually have much money to spend, and there aren't that many of them anyway. So basically property owners waste all that money accommodating them; and they get zero in return. In business, that's called a loser bet. And that's exactly what the ADA forces property owners to do.

I know what you're thinking: How can I be so mean when talking about Americans with disabilities? Well, I've got a simple answer: Because I'm honest. Life isn't easy in America. It isn't easy to run a profitable business and pay your bills. Life is fast-paced; if you can't hack it, you can't hack it. It's hard enough to turn a profit even with full body function; you can just forget about it you're legless. If you had the bad luck to get crippled--or you were born with some freakish defect that condemns you to lifetime care--that's your problem. You have no business doing business. You shouldn't be in the race. Sorry about that. That's just the way the ball bounces, mon frère. Apply for charity or something. Just don't stand in line or apply for a job with everyone else. You really annoy us.

Normal Americans just plain don't like being around crippled people. It makes them uncomfortable. When a family goes to the museum, they don't like waiting for a half-dead, moaning retard on a motorized gurney to navigate a narrow passageway. When young professionals go to a discotheque on Friday night, they don't like waiting two minutes for a blind war veteran on two canes to hop his way up the steps. When hardworking American workers get home at night, the last thing they want is to wait for a paralyzed woman to fish out pocket change in line at the grocery store.

In a word, crippled people frustrate and frighten everyone around them. Nobody likes them. Nobody has patience for them. In that sense, it is perplexing that the ADA forces both business owners and customers to deal with them on even terms. If it were up to the American people, they would stay away from cripples like the black death. But the law forces Americans to treat them "equally." This is both wrong and unjust.

To summarize: Commercial life is fast-paced; and disabled Americans are not fast-paced. They simply cannot cut the mustard. From an evolutionary standpoint, crippled people don't belong in commercial life. They can't keep up. That's the truth, no matter what goody-goody rhetoric apologists on it. If it came between hiring an able-bodied man and a wheelchair-bound man for the same job, no rational employer would ever hire the cripple. Why should he? If both men had the mental ability to do the job, why hire the man who needs a special entrance door and elevator just to get into the building? Why assume the extra trouble? In business, we move fast. We avoid inconvenience when we can. And cripples are inconvenient. The bottom line is that we don't have time to be nice. Time is money. So we hire the man who takes less time to do the same job. Plus he can get up and run errands once in a while.

Commercial life is like nature: Only the strong survive. Yet the ADA compels commercial actors to accommodate cripples and hire them on equal terms, no matter how unprofitable it may be. This is not only counter-evolutionary. It is also unnatural. Would a bee colony support bees without wings? Would a cattle herd help a cow with broken legs? Certainly not: Caring for cripples threatens the well-being of the healthy community. Commerce, like nature, is a death struggle against bankruptcy. Just as a herd depends on healthy, contributing members to avoid death in nature, so too do commercial actors depend on healthy, contributing employees to avoid bankruptcy in commerce. And just as a herd abandons crippled members to avoid death in nature, so too do commercial actors jettison crippled employees to avoid bankruptcy in commerce. In this light, the ADA forces commercial actors to unnaturally hire crippled workers who do more harm than good for the enterprise.

Viewed as a whole, the ADA terrorizes liberty and makes war on nature. In the name of "decency, compassion and humanity," it forces property owners into bankruptcy just to accommodate worthless crippled Americans. It hamstrings employers by forcing them to hire employees who are physically unable to make money. And it frustrates everyday Americans by forcing them to watch pathetic cripples take entirely too long to accomplish rudimentary commercial activities, like boarding a bus.

What is liberty if not the freedom to spend money as we please, to hire whom we please and to keep the company we please? And what is liberty if we must spend money in ways we'd rather not, hire clearly unsatisfactory people and keep uncomfortable company with paralyzed invalids who defecate on themselves in public? That is not liberty--that is terrorism.

As a property owner and an American, I say with all my heart: The Americans with Disabilities Act is terrorism. And I believe in freedom. That means the freedom to shut out cripples from movie theaters and fire people without arms. And it also means the freedom to walk into a grocery store at 6:45 PM without fear that a deaf-mute fucktard on crutches will hold up the line for seven minutes.

I speak for all Americans who believe in unrestricted commerce when I say: "Hey lady. Yeah, you, the amputee. Pick up the fucking pace, will you? I just got out of work. Friends is on soon and I'll be damned if you take two more fucking minutes to pay for that soup."

AN ETHICAL PRESIDENT? OBAMA, LINCOLN AND THE HEALTH CARE VICTORY

AN ESSAY

While the moment is fresh, I must write a few words about the monumental health care reform bill that passed Congress this week. It is really quite a surprising--and inspiring--development. I had to temper my usual cynicism when I realized that the United States actually took a serious step toward reforming its health insurance system. Although President Obama always said he wanted to change health care, I gradually lost faith that he could penetrate furious Republican resistance. But against all prognostications, he did penetrate the resistance. He may have won only by a small margin. Nonetheless, Obama's principled win over private health insurance companies is unprecedented in modern American history.

Still, I am not writing about the health care bill today per se. I am not going to exhaustively discuss its intricacies, loopholes or missed opportunities. True, it is not fundamental reform. It does not create a European-style "single-payer" government-run health insurance program that guarantees coverage to every citizen as a matter of right. Nonetheless, as President Obama noted, it is "major" reform. It regulates private health insurance companies in significant ways. It prevents them from refusing to cover people with "pre-existing medical conditions" (ie, "most people"). And it mandates that everyone obtain health insurance. Uninsured Americans (including me) will benefit because the legislation provides extremely low-priced coverage from a "high-risk, government-supported" insurance company. In other words, health care won't be free for uninsured people. But it will be close to it.

For almost a century, no President has achieved such meaningful reform to American health care. And it is not just the legislation's substance that bears mention. In my view, the most memorable thing about Obama's health care victory is the ethical manner in which he conducted himself throughout the debate.

Public faith in American politicians is virtually nonexistent. People expect them to lie, hoodwink, steal, gladhand and enrich themselves at public expense. They expect politicians to sacrifice all their principles to save their jobs. When a politician says something, the natural response is to assume that he will do the opposite. In short, most people think that ethics is completely foreign to Washington politics. Promises mean nothing. People expect politicians to break them as soon as the water gets hot. In a word, people are extremely cynical about politicians in America.

But then along came Obama. In 2008, he won a landslide victory by promising "change we can believe in." He seemed a breath of fresh air in the noxious political marshland, a man who did not seem ready to engage in backroom dealing or pork barreling. He talked about principles and truth. He was a "white knight;" he was an uncorrupted soul. Although cynical Americans always have a hard time dropping their natural suspicion about politicians, they did when they elected Obama. They really thought that Obama meant what he said. They thought he would hold to his promises. He promised to reform health care.

In 2009, President Obama began the push for health care reform. Despite his good intentions, mean-spirited Republican resistance undermined his popularity. As the year wore on--and as the economy continued to falter--even Democrats began to question whether Obama could get anything done. They wondered whether all his campaign promises had just been rhetorical fluff. Republicans caricatured Obama as a "law professor," a man who thought too much and did too little. Critics castigated him for being "too polite for Washington." They blamed him for giving too much deference to opposing arguments. In other words, he was too weak to survive Washington's ruthless, dog-eat-dog political atmosphere.

Yet President Obama stayed true to his heart. He did not turn into a conniving Washington technocrat. No, he stood by his promises. He swore to push through health reform no matter the political cost. He did not care whether his commitment to his word would cost him a second term. He said he would fight for health reform. So he kept fighting. And he did not become an ogre in the process, either. He retained his composed decorum, even as Republicans hyperventilated around him and spread outrageous horror stories about "Obamacare."

Obama's fidelity to his own word paid off this week. Despite all the tempests and scares in Congress over the past few months, both the House and Senate passed a substantial reform bill. Although every vote along the way split sharply down party lines, the reform effort pressed forward. Something larger was at work beyond mere politics. Obama's commitment to his word seemed to vault Congress past its stifling political slavishness. What was it? It was the power of ethics.

It is no surprise that Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln the day before the House voted on health care reform. Obama quoted: "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have." Put another way, it is always more important to do right than it is to worry about your political future. And there are deeper rewards to be gained from ethical fulfillment than mere reelection. No words could have encapsulated Obama's extraordinary commitment to ethics in Washington more poignantly.

Abraham Lincoln is the most inspiring President in American history because he was the most ethical President. He took office as the Nation faced its single worst crisis. He then transformed a War for Union into a crusade to end slavery in the United States. He did this because slavery was simply "wrong" as an ethical matter. His decision was politically unpopular. Someone assassinated him for it. But he did it because it was the ethically right thing to do. Lincoln had no personal interest in freeing the slaves. Politically, it was unnecessary. Yet he did it because he did not just care about "winning." He cared about being "true" and "living up to the light he had." That meant following ethics in his heart, not the politics that raged outside him.

Almost no President has dared to jeopardize his political future to "do the right thing." While health reform may not be as significant as ending slavery in America, President Obama nonetheless followed in Lincoln's footsteps by committing himself to an unpopular cause and risking everything to realize it. That is inspiring. And it is almost shocking, because it contradicts the comfortable cynicism most people adopt when thinking about Washington politicians. After all, can you believe what you just heard? A President is willing to risk everything to reform health care because he promised to risk everything to reform health care? You mean he actually takes his word that seriously? Can't be!

But it is, and that's what is so moving about Obama's victory. It was not just a technical victory over unfairness in health care. It was a victory of ethics over politics. It was a victory of principle over expediency. Obama pushed health care because he said he would. That is almost unprecedented in modern American political history. And it is even more inspiring that he did not let the "turkeys get him down" along the way. He kept his composure. He maintained his respect and dignity. He remained a "law professor," no matter how much people ridiculed him for it.

He didn't just care about winning. Rather, he was "bound to be true." And suddenly I find myself with an anomaly: Ethics just prevailed in Washington. That makes it harder for me to scowl and wax cynical about America.

Now, I'm actually inclined to smile. I feel strangely justified today. I love it when ethical people prevail, even if just for a day.

As I have always said, there is more to life than winning games.

STARE DECISIS, SHMARE DECISIS : WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT CORPORATE ELECTION SPENDING CASE IS ALL WRONG

AN ESSAY

PART 2

Yesterday I wrote to explain how the Supreme Court erred in its recent decision granting corporations unlimited freedom to make "independent expenditures" that advocate for Federal election candidates: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op.). I confined my analysis to the assertion that Congress had good reason to restrict corporations' ability to distort public debate by buying up all the airtime around elections. See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 441(b). I noted that according full First Amendment protection to corporations makes it difficult for individuals to voice their First Amendment rights. I also lamented the Court's decision to overrule an earlier case that concluded the same things: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).

Today I continue my analysis on a new point: The Court's utterly hypocritical "commitment" to the legal doctrine "stare decisis." In my view, the Court overrules prior cases when its membership changes, not because monumental social changes render prior decisions "unworkable" or "anachronistic." Citizens United affirms my cynicism on this issue: The fact that both men (Republicans) who voted against Austin in 1990 now vote to overrule it in 2010 says it clearly enough. This is not about policy. It is about politics.

Stare decisis is a judicial custom in common law countries like Great Britain and the United States. In Latin, it means "stand by the decision." Its technical legal meaning does not differ much. It admonishes judges to decide cases according to principles announced in similar past cases. When an older case provides an answer to a question, stare decisis obligates judges to provide the same answer in a case raising the same question. In practice, stare decisis reinforces respect for the judicial system because it informs citizens how judges will rule in particular circumstances. It also reinforces respect for the so-called "rule of law" in society: The idea that power flows from neutral legal principles, not men's individual caprice.

Yet everyone agrees that stare decisis is not the right policy in every circumstance. It makes no sense to follow ancient cases to resolve modern dilemmas. After all, if judges strictly observed stare decisis in every case, we would still live under cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the infamous decision that permitted legal racial segregation in 1896. Everyone knows that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), overruled Plessy in 1954. The Supreme Court refused to follow stare decisis in that case; and for good reason. Plessy did not make sense any more. It could not be reconciled with constitutional liberty and equality principles. And society had changed in fundamental ways between 1896 and 1954. Those considerations all warranted abandoning stare decisis to overrule the past decision: By 1954, Plessy had degenerated into a pernicious historical "anachronism."

But the Court wanders into extremely dangerous territory when it overrules cases on less compelling grounds. Stare decisis is the rule, not the exception. And when the Supreme Court overrules cases every few years simply because its membership changes, it inflicts the damage that stare decisis is intended to avoid: The cynical public perception that the Court is not committed to law and constitutional principle, but rather to politics and raw power.

Politics and raw power certainly won the day in Citizens United. I have long been cynical about the Supreme Court and its increasingly mordant, political tone. I have long known that its current conservative majority will not "stand by decisions" it does not like. Yet it will certainly "stand by decisions" that match its political colors. That is why it does not surprise me that it lightly overruled Austin on the corporate election funding question, even though people do not view that question much differently today than they did in 1990. If anything, the reasons that justified Austin's hostility toward corporate political power are more compelling today than they were then.

Justice Kennedy knows this all too well. After all, none other than Justice Kennedy sang a sweeping ode to stare decisis just eighteen years ago in the case that saved abortion rights: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). It was Justice Kennedy who signed on to this formula for stare decisis: "[W]hen this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case." Id. at 854-855. Sounds like he takes stare decisis pretty seriously, doesn't it?

You have no idea how seriously. Justice Kennedy even approved four detailed factors to determine whether it would "undermine the rule of law" to overrule a prior constitutional case: "[W]e may ask whether (1) the rule has proved intolerable simply in defying practical workability, whether (2) the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation, whether (3) related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, or whether (4) facts have so changed or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification." Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855 (enumeration and emphasis added).

In Casey, the Court spent many painstaking pages applying the four stare decisis factors. Justice Kennedy joined the analysis in full. He thought it would "undermine the rule of law" to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 110 (1973), just nineteen years after the Court decided it. In sum, Justice Kennedy doggedly defended stare decisis in Casey. He voted to "stand by" the decision.

But where was that doggedness in Citizens United? And what happened to the delicate, detailed stare decisis factors that guided Justice Kennedy's analysis in Casey? They are nowhere to be found. Rather, Justice Kennedy employs a much more nebulous stare decisis test in Citizens United: "Beyond workability, the relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to the principle of stare decisis include the antiquity of the precedent, the reliance interests at stake, and of course whether the decision was well reasoned." Citizens United, 558 U.S. __ (slip op. at 47)(emphasis added).

What the hell does "well reasoned" mean? What possible objective guidance does that factor provide? It is no surprise that the Court in Casey did not employ a "well reasoned" test in deciding whether to overrule Roe v. Wade. If it had, it would have merely invited the Justices to import their own political sensibilities to determine whether to overrule it. Yet that is Justice Kennedy's test in deciding whether to overrule a 20-year-old precedent about the integrity of American democracy. And with a standard like "well reasoned," you know how it came out.

I find it significant that Justice Kennedy changed his own standards to overrule Austin. After all, if he had applied the painstaking stare decisis factors he endorsed in Casey, he would not have reached the same conclusion. In Austin, the Court held that restrictions on corporate "independent expenditures" advocating Federal candidates were justified in order to curb "corruption and the appearance of corruption," as well as to curtail the disproportionate influence that "immense aggregations of wealth" wield upon the American political process. Austin, 494 U.S. 659-660.

Under the Casey standard for stare decisis, I do not see how this rule has become "unworkable." For generations now, corporations have learned to cope with campaign financing restrictions. They know they have to create "political action committees" in order to advertise for candidates they like. This satisfies Casey's "practical workability" factor.

Second, the American public has placed reliance on Austin's rule. Americans understand that corporations project enormous power in government; and most Americans rightly worry that corporations' financial advantages grant them unfair political leverage. Congress' corporate campaign funding restrictions assured the American people that the law acts to "prevent corruption" in the political process and to curtail the "corrosive" effects of "immense aggregations of wealth" on elections. In this sense, Austin's rule satisfies Casey's "reliance" factor.

Third, the law has not substantially changed on the corporate political speech question since 1990. Not much can happen in constitutional law over such a short period. Constitutional developments take decades. Historically, they coincide with social upheaval. Social changes in American society rewrote the law when the Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954. Sixty years, two world wars, a Depression and an atomic bomb had intervened to completely change the way Americans viewed the world. Against that backdrop, it is not surprising that the Court changed the law to keep up.

It is facetious to argue that such monumental social and legal changes have occurred in American society since 1990. In fact, Americans expect government to act against corporate overreaching. By overruling Austin's rule on this point, the Court completely ignores Casey's third factor concerning "fundamental legal change." That is why Justice Kennedy did not even mention this factor in his opinion. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op. at 47).

Fourth, all the facts that supported Austin remain as true today as they did in 1990. Austin posited that restrictions on corporate speech were necessary to prevent corruption and unfairness in the American political process engendered by "massive aggregations of corporate wealth." Those facts formed the basis for the decision. Congress proceeded on those facts when it enacted the corporate campaign finance law.

If anything, those facts are even more true today. There is a rampant public perception that corporate wealth skews political transparency. Cynicism dominates rhetoric about corporate interference in politics. Austin fulfilled Casey's fourth factor on this point: Facts about corporate political spending have not "so changed or become so different as to have robbed [Austin's] rule of significant application or justification." Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 855. Put succinctly, those facts have not changed at all.

Again, it is hardly surprising that Justice Kennedy did not list the "factual change" factor in his Citizens United analysis. Instead, he merely invents a new standard: Whether the prior case was "well reasoned." See Citizens United, 558 U.S. __(2010)(slip op. 47). After all, if he had applied his own test from 1992, he could not in good faith have argued that "facts about corporate influence on politics" have significantly changed in twenty years. So he just ignored what he said in 1992 and made up something else.

See how easy it is to be a Supreme Court justice? You don't even have to stick to what you said before. You can just make things up as you go--as long as you get five votes on it.

But this is all very sad. After all, stare decisis exists to preserve public faith in our Judiciary. If the public sees--as it must now--that the Court willingly discards recent precedent simply because Republicans have more seats than Democrats, it will conclude that the Court is no better than Congress. Yet the Court is supposed to be our "independent branch," an erudite institution that rules on lasting constitutional principle, not casual politics. When the Court coarsely disregards recent precedent--especially on explosive political issues like election control--it sullies itself in ways that are difficult to repair. When the Court acts like this, it invites the same dismissive cynicism that the public usually reserves for elected officials. Principle means nothing. The Court just devolves into another political battleground.

And shame on Justice Kennedy. His hypocrisy has reached epic levels. He does not even apply his own lofty rhetoric about stare decisis. Rather, he abandons it the moment he encounters a case with which he "disagrees." He dissented in Austin twenty years ago. Then he joined an opinion that passionately defended stare decisis two years later. On that basis, one might think he would think twice about lightly overruling recent cases. But instead he overruled Austin without even using the grandiose stare decisis test he so forcefully advocated in Casey. This time, he did not even spend three pages dismissing stare decisis.

He really must not have liked Austin.

Apparently, our Constitution now functions according to a new test: Whether Justice Kennedy likes a case. Thankfully for him, he has four guys who will stand with him in most situations. And all you need is five.