"ONE CAN DEBATE the merits of creating personal accounts in Social Security but not the case for fixing the program's solvency problems. Over the next 75 years, as the Social Security trustees reported on Wednesday, the program has a projected deficit of $4 trillion; the longer the nation waits to address this problem, the nastier the tax hikes or benefit reductions that will result. But that's not the impression conveyed by some Democratic leaders. The trustees' report, according to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), "confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." The senator's desire to score political points is understandable. His willingness to do so by implying that Social Security is healthy is not. "

The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country.

The officer, Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, head of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, said that insurgents were averaging about 10 attacks a day, and that fewer than two of those attacks killed or wounded American forces or damaged equipment. That compared with 25 attacks a day, five of them with casualties or damage, in the weeks leading up to the pivotal battle of Falluja in November, he said...

...He said that several hundred hard-core jihadists and former members of Saddam Hussein's government and security services were still operating in Anbar Province, but that the declining frequency of the attacks indicated that the rebels' influence was waning.

"They're way down on their attempts, and even more on their effectiveness," General Sattler said.

• The American public is paying attention
• Abortion policy is an increasing, not a receding, irritant
• Public awe of the judiciary is receding
• The Supreme Court is at a turning point
• Powerful voices advocate a return to originalism
• The Republican Senator majority seems inclined to break filibusters of judicial nominees
• The Democrats' arguments will not prevail in the public arena

Of these, I'm not terribly convinced about the "powerful voices . . [for] originalism" but I also see an additional reason to hope.

The role of the Internet as a medium of communication and expression has so transformed the ability of ordinary people to learn about the law and the judiciary that it is not only transforming how people learn, but also what they learn.

Decades ago, information about the judiciary and judicial decisions were filtered and organized by the mainstream media in a way that fit into the MSM's paradigm  That paradigm emphasized social security and particular ideas of social progress at the expense of individual rights and those other values that the elites deemed less valuable.

Removing that filtering function has facilitated discussion and learning outside of the elites' paradigm.  Today, ordinary Internet readers can learn of examples of judicial activism in ways not previously possible (or at least convenient). 

An informed populace is much less likely to accept uncritically judges who disguise policy choices as Constitutional interpretation. 

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.  . . . You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility. . . . Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?"

I suspect that, whatever his views might be on personal accounts today, FDR would have little use for liberals who attack them without any suggestions of their own on how to "try something."

Democrats in power can make small, quiet moves toward redistribution, like the expansion of the earned income tax credit in the Clinton administration. Out of power, they can focus on policies for which arguments can be made by vivid anecdotes, like prescription drugs for seniors. Or they can obstruct change and wait for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to gobble up larger shares of the economy. But that will take time.

For now, Democrats are facing the fact that general arguments for a larger welfare state just doesn't seem attractive to most voters.

"Had the Larsons done a bit more homework," they would have learned that the people of Wisconsin granted the legislature "power to establish school boards."

"I think it would have been more of a deterrent if the judge had sanctioned the father for bringing the lawsuit in the first place, " reasoning that fewer frivolous suits like this would be filed if potential plaintiffs knew they might be sanctioned for filing a complaint just to "see what happens."

"To establish liability, the plaintiffs would have to show that the usage was illegal under international law; the defendants knew how their product would be used; and, that with knowledge, they supplied the product, facilitating and becoming a party to the illegality. 'Unfairness' to government contractors is not a convincing ground for ignoring their corporate liability under international law since it would be necessary to show that the corporation was aware of the intended illegal use when it supplied its product."

Republicans have so far been successful in their efforts to limit class action lawsuits, and have other tort reforms in their sights. They are winning because they control the rhetoric, not because they are armed with undisputed facts. 

 

The message begins at the White House. In his State of the Union Bush called on Congress to pass medical liability reform that "will reduce health-care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need." By the time it's cranked up, this message will be carried via talk radio and cable and amplified with a multi-million dollar lobbying, PR and advertising blitz by the business and medical communities.

Republicans have so far been successful in their efforts to limit class action lawsuits, and have other tort reforms in their sights. They are winning because they control the rhetoric, not because they are armed with undisputed facts.

Dr. Greenspan has received honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, Leuven (Belgium), Notre Dame, Wake Forest, and Colgate universities. His other awards include the Thomas Jefferson Award for the greatest public service performed by an elected or appointed official, presented by the American Institute for Public Service, 1976 (joint recipient with Dr. Arthur Burns and William Simon); election as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association, 1989; decorated Legion of Honor (Commander) France, 2000; honorary Knight Commander of the British Empire, 2002; and he was the first recipient of the Gerald R. Ford Medal for Distinguished Public Service, 2003.

In contrast, Senator Reid's bio stresses his humble beginnings:

•  malpractice claims increased at an annual rate of 4.9%
•  the average claim increased at an annual rate of 4.1%
•  defense costs increased at an annual rate of 6.4%; and
•  67% of those claims that incurred defense costs resulted in no compensation at all.

This last point is remarkable.  In a little more than two-thirds of the cases where the insurer contested liability, the insurer was right and owed the plaintiff nothing.

Washington has a growing movement to reform its litigation system which supported legislation in 2004 that narrowly missed passage. 

The Washington Liability Reform Coalition is hoping to do better in 2005, building on momentum achieved from successful litigation reform efforts in Georgia and Ohio.   

Of course this trend is entirely consistent with the economic model I describe in Out of Balance: Prescriptions for Reforming the American Litigation System.  Washington, like most states, allows plaintiffs a "free shot" a defendants.  Facing a claim in which it has no hope for ever getting its attorneys' fees reimbursed, a defendant will often settle simply to avoid the cost of defense.

The data in this survey demonstrates that it is becoming increasingly expensive for defendants to defend themselves, even when defendants "win" in over two-thirds of the cases they contest.