The Connecticut Supreme Court is allowing a lawsuit from the Sandy Hook shooting to go forward. Kevin Williamson refers to it as a “Bogus Lawsuit Against Remington.” He raises important questions about the propriety and constitutionality of the legal case.

First, he reminds us that in tort law the focus is usually on the entity with deep pockets. That couldn’t be Adam Lanza who killed himself. It probably couldn’t be the institutions that counselled him. Therefore, the focus of the lawsuit is on Remington with the lawyers claiming that the company’s marketing practices contributed to the Sandy Hook shooting.

Second, he also reminds us that this connection doesn’t really work. His mother is the person who purchased the gun. Adam Lanza stole the gun from her and murdered her.

David French joined the discussion by focusing on the federal law that bars plaintiffs from filing suit against gun manufacturers. He argues that “no one thinks that Ford should be held liable if a terrorist drives an F-250 into a crowd. Yet there are activists who believe that, Ruger should be held liable if a bank robber uses an SR9 to commit a robbery.”

In an effort to get around this, the Connecticut court gets creative and tries to apply the unfair trade practices act in order to allow the Sandy Hook lawsuit to go forward. The problem, it that there is nothing in the ads for the gun that describes or urges illegal conduct.

Toward the end of the legal opinion, it becomes obvious that the real target is not the ad for the gun but rather the gun itself. They describe it as a “quasi-military, semiautomatic assault rifle” and thus see the lawsuit as legitimate.

This is a bad decision from the Connecticut court and reason enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and reverse it.

The Democratically-controlled House of Representatives just passed a signature piece of legislation. The bill clearly illustrates what the congressional leaders would like to do in America if they could control both houses of Congress and the presidency.

The editors of National Review call it a “legislative buffet of bad ideas.” The Institute for Free Speech calls it, “The For the Politicians Act.” The American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the members of Congress urging them to vote no on the bill. When you have such diverse groups expressing their concern about the bill, you know it is has many problems.

For example, the bill would expand the requirements for financial disclosure. First, this is of concern at a time when citizens are being harassed and intimidated because they supported a marriage amendment on the ballot. Second, even the ACLU has expressed concern that a person could be exposed as a “political donor” if an organization chooses (without the donor’s knowledge) to mention a politician by name. The ACLU believes “it is unfair to hold donors responsible for every communication in which an organization engages.”

The bill would revamp the Federal Election Commission and virtually assure that it would come under partisan control. The bill strips from the states the ability to draw their own congressional districts. They are much more likely to understand the cultures and different priorities of the regions in their state.

Critics also see so much of the bill designed to limit political speech. We have seen the desire of social media outlets and universities to control any speech that is unpopular or contradictory to political correctness. The bill attempts to micromanage speech into government-approved lanes.

It is unlikely that a Republican-controlled Senate will approve this legislation. But the bill does show what Democratic leaders would like to implement if Democrats next year win control of Congress and the White House.

Medicare for All has been in the news for months, and it will be a key campaign issue in the upcoming elections. Although I wrote about some of the problems with the concept months ago, that was based upon predictions about what might be in the legislation. Since the Medicare for All Act has been filed, we can clearly see what implementing this might mean for you and your family.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith has written an excellent summary of what he calls the “most destructive features.” Although there are nine in his summary, let me just mention four of the nine.

First, it would “drown the country in red ink.” Even that is an understatement. Last year’s version authored by Senator Bernie Sanders was more limited in coverage than this bill. Even so, that legislation was estimated to add $32 trillion to the budget over ten years.

Second, Medicare for All would require rationing. The bill creates a Physician Practice Review Board that is supposed to “assure quality, cost-effectiveness, and fair reimbursements.” You should know that “cost-effectiveness” is code for rationing. If you are young and need to set a broken arm, no problem. If you are old and need a heart transplant, that probably won’t be cost effective.

Third, doctors and hospitals “would become government contractors.” Strictly speaking, the government would not employ doctors directly. But they must sign a very restrictive “participation agreement” to be eligible to receive payments from the government.

Fourth, the government “could steal pharmaceutical patents.” The government would negotiate the price of medicines with drug companies. But if the company refused, their patent could be taken or transferred. This would likely stifle innovation and the development of future life-saving drugs and treatments.

There’s much more, but I hope this brief overview shows you what is wrong with Medicare for All.

Neal Gabler, writing in The Atlantic, begins his essay with this disturbing statistic from a survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Board. The survey asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. They found that 47 percent of respondents said they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something. In other words, they could not come up with the $400 any other way.

Gabler asks: Who knew? He then answers that he knew, because he is one of that 47 percent. He said he knows what it is like to swallow his pride and constantly dun people to pay him so he can pay others. He knows what it is like to dread going to the mailbox because it usually has more new bills and rarely a check to pay for them. He knows what it is like to tell his daughter that he may not be able to pay for her wedding.

His point is you wouldn’t know this by looking at him. You could look at his resume as a writer and conclude he was doing fine. He is in the middle-class (even upper middle class) with five books and hundreds of articles to his name. That is why he wrote about what he calls, “the secret shame of middle-class Americans.”

One financial psychologist says that you are “more likely to hear from your buddy that he is on Viagra than that he has credit-card problems.” To struggle financially is a source of shame. The only protection is silence.

Another study concluded that nearly half of American adults are “financially fragile” and are “living close to the financial edge.” And it is worth mentioning that this is not just a liquidity problem: that they don’t have enough ready cash in their checking and savings account. Median net worth has dropped significantly.

The lesson here for everyone from politicians to employers is this. When we say that American workers are hurting, it is actually much worse then we might suspect.

For decades, sociologists have documented the phenomenon of extended adolescence. This is where someone who is an adult still acts like a teenager. One classic example would be a 35-year-old who has part of their rent and bills covered by parents and continues to take college classes.

Jean Twenge in her latest research on the trailing edge millennials (who she calls iGen) are extending this phenomenon even further. She documents that teenagers are becoming adults even later than the last generation. She argues that teens today are less prepared for adulthood. She also adds that they are safer, since the rates of car accidents and teen pregnancies have fallen dramatically.

Fewer 12th graders have tried alcohol. Back in 1994, 85 percent had tried alcohol. Today, only 66 percent have tried alcohol. Only 73 percent of 12th graders have drivers’ licenses, down from 85 percent twenty years ago.

One of the more dramatic differences can be found in social dating. Only about half (58%) of them have been on a date. Compare that to 83 percent of 12th graders who had been on a date back in 1994 by their senior year.

Another dramatic difference is one that we have talked about in the past: work experience. About half (56%) of 12th graders have worked for pay, which is down from 72 percent in 1994. Many more are taking college prep classes or hanging out at home.

All of these dramatic changes have resulted in a relatively new term being used by sociologists: emerging adulthood. This is their attempt to describe a new life stage between adolescence and adulthood.

All of this reminds me of the jingle, “I don’t want to grow up, I’m a Toys-R-Us kid.” Maybe it’s time for adults to say to the kids: its time to grow up.

Americans don’t know much about the Constitution, and it apparently is getting worse. Nine years ago, I wrote and recorded a commentary about constitutional illiteracy.

Back then I quoted John Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) who testified before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the rule of law. He provided some alarming statistics based upon a survey done about ten years ago.

They found that only one in four Americans could name more than one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. In one study, they found that only one person out of 1,000 people could name all five First Amendment freedoms. Those would be the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, along with the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I thought about those statistics when I read an editorial written by Cal Thomas. He quoted from a recent poll conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. They found that 37 percent of those interviewed could not name ANY of the five rights protected in the First Amendment.

Nearly a decade ago we were lamenting how few could name more than one of the First Amendment freedoms. Today, more than a third cannot name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

Americans are not only ignorant of the Constitution; many are ignorant of the structure of our government. A third (33%) could not name one of the three branches of government. About a fourth (26%) could correctly name all three.

Unfortunately, some of these Americans who are ignorant of the Constitution and ignorant of our government actually vote in elections. You can’t protect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution if you don’t know what they are. You can’t protect our system of government if you don’t know how it is structured. I hope you can see that we have lots of work to do to educate Americans about the Constitution.

We are a divided country, but it may be worse than we imagined. An article in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discussed what is called “motive attribution asymmetry.” That’s a technical term for the assumption that your ideology is based in love and your opponent’s is based on hate. Put another way: we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys.

They discovered that the average Republican and the average Democrat today are as divided as the Palestinians and Israelis. In his op-ed in the New York Times Arthur Brooks says we see the other side as “an enemy with whom one cannot negotiate or compromise.”

He comes to this startling conclusion. “People often say that our problem in America is incivility or intolerance. That is incorrect. Motive attribution asymmetry leads to something far worse: contempt, which is a noxious brew of anger and disgust.” And it is made worse by what he calls the “outrage industrial complex” that caters to one side and criticizes the other.

When people hear about political conflicts, they often prescribe the wrong solutions. Just because we disagree, doesn’t mean we should put aside our disagreements. Arthur Brooks says we need not disagree less. Instead, we need to disagree better. Whether we are discussing politics, economics, or philosophy we should engage is a robust “competition of ideas.” We can disagree without being so disagreeable.

He suggests two steps. First, turn away from what he calls the “rhetorical dope peddlers.” These are powerful people on your side who are profiting from the culture of contempt. Second, make a commitment never to treat others with contempt. Christians should be civil and gracious.

Earlier this month the Federal Reserve reported that credit card debt for Americans hit $870 billion as of December. That makes it the largest amount ever.

Obviously credit card debt goes up in December because of shopping for Christmas, but this number is way above the credit card debt load in the past. Nearly 480 million credit cards are in circulation, which is up 100 million from a decade ago during the recession.

Using credit cards to purchase items isn’t a problem if you pay off the credit card each month. Many Americans are not doing that. About 37 million credit card accounts had a 90+ day delinquency mark added to their credit report last quarter. That’s an increase of about two million from the fourth quarter of 2017.

As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, credit card debt isn’t the largest debt owed by Americans. First is mortgage debt. Second is auto loan debt. Third is student loan debt. At least with some of the other debts, there are assets (like a house or car) attached to the debt load.

Notice that credit card debt is increasing while the incomes for most Americans is also increasing. Economists point out that while incomes are growing, some costs are growing faster. Some of these fast growing costs are items like medical costs and food purchased away from home.

One other item of interest is the fact that older Americans (over the age of 60) are holding a significant portion of credit card debt. They account for about 30 percent of the total.

My book, Christians and Economics, is now available in English and Spanish. In the book, I remind us of the dangers of debt. Proverbs 22:7 says, “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is a servant to the lender.” Don’t be enslaved by debt.