The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
Some Members of Congress Just Can’t Help Themselves
The Miami Herald has a very in-depth report on connections between Members of Congress and indicted banker Allen Stanford. The federal government is currently investigating the connections. Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) is highlighted at the beginning of the article. The head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Sessions is is likely to be in a lot of hot water, both legally and in the eyes of the public. Unfortunately, he’s not the only Member who will be.
I first saw this at Daily Kos. Normally, this would be unfortunate, as bad things about Republicans on Daily Kos generally turn into bad news for that Republican and the party. However, in this case I am very glad they are spreading what is going on. Corruption should be stopped as soon as possible, by whomever will do it. Democrats haven’t done their job in rooting out well-known (if legally unproven) corruption with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) and many others who are suspected of corruption, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Regrettably, Republicans are little better, having failed to hold numerous members of their caucus to ethical standards, including prostitute-utilizer Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator John Ensign (R-NV). Too, while not part of the Congressional caucus, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is still in power despite the probable illicit taxpayer use for his travels.
Nothing illegal has been proven, as Stanford’s lawyer says in the Herald article. However, American citizens should insist that the Justice Department conduct a thorough review of Stanford’s records, and make certain all information comes to light well before the 2010 mid-term elections, and that arrests are made should the Justice Department decide illegalities were committed.
One last note: Daily Kos hammers Sessions, but neglects to note Democrats were large recipients of Stanford’s money as well. The latter is not their job- they are a liberal blog, after all, not a news source- but I would hope they would go after Rangel and the other Democrats mentioned in the article, if only in the interest of keeping Democrats honest. (Of course, if Sessions hadn’t said he “loved” Stanford, perhaps DK wouldn’t have gone after him quite so harshly.)
Update: Take a look at Judicial Watch’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress. Nine out of the ten are Democrats which, as Ed Morrissey explains, makes sense in the current political climate. However, added to the May 20 Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington report showing 12 of the 16 Members of Congress under investigation at that time were Democrats, perhaps Democratic politicians are just as bad as the corrupt Republicans hammered on back in 2006. (Just a guess…)
Health Care Officially Passes Senate
It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:
1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?
2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.
3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.
4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?
5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.
It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.
The Best Of Both Worlds
Hey, CPAC organizers, here’s an idea- let’s stick to our principles and get good public relations at the same time! Let’s start with not allowing the John Birch Society to co-sponsor the 2010 CPAC. Then, let’s fully support the inclusion of GOProud as a c0-sponsor.
Here’s what this will do:
1. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives does not support the kind of extremism our movement has been accused of over the past several years and particularly in the last year.
2. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives?is inclusive towards?organizations that share stances on tax policy; a belief in?limited government and free markets; and?standing up against those foreign enemies that commit atrocious human rights violations. Since GOProud is a conservative gay organization, it will also show that the conservative movement values what Ed Morrissey so aptly said we should: “…a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.”
Morrissey concluded his analysis better than I can, so I’ll steal what he wrote: “If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation?s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.
That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached ? namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.? We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.
GOProud?s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.? We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.”
Boxer’s Opponents Scraping The Barrel
A few months ago, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had an ego trip with a general who called her ma’am. This caused quite a bit of hilarity among conservatives, and wincing among Democrats. Now Boxer’s primary opponent hopefuls are making the most out of it.
The arrogance of Boxer will light a bit of a fire under the seat of the tiny Republican base in California, but it won’t play out in the general election. Boxer is powerful- the current chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee- and a third-term senator. Incumbency is a huge strength in congressional elections, and Boxer isn’t going to lose to a Republican in California, especially one using an example of her arrogance as a primary weapon.
What might work, however is continuing to highlight her major support and substantial role in creating a cap-and-trade bill; highlight how the bill was pushed to next year by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), indicating both how unpopular it is and how there are no major plans to pass it (no, Democrats are not going to pass a job-killing bill in the same year as an election during a major recession); and perhaps how even President Obama has admitted electricity costs will skyrocket and how the EPA Administrator admitted earlier this year in Hill testimony that ?[she] believe[s] that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.? Too, emphasize how it was liberals who created California’s economic and other messes, and how conservatives can fix them.
How Medicare Cuts Should Work
In an odd twist of political fate, Democrats have called for cuts in Medicare of up to half a trillion dollars over ten years, and Republicans have opposed those cuts. While not a fan of Medicare, but certainly a fan of cutting the massive wasteful spending that occurs in the system, I believe a more ethical way of weaning Americans off of Medicare must be created.
Conservatives may not like this approach, but older people have paid into Medicare for 35 or more years with the promise of a financial return. To cut their benefits with the ax Democrats have proposed is not right. It will hurt the nation financially, but I think the cuts must be phased in over a period of time, in order that Americans who will be the recipient of said cuts will have time to save money and adjust their retirement goals before the cuts kick in. Of course, stopping the massive fraud and the aforementioned waste in Medicare would help the sustainability of the program quite a bit, and perhaps give us a bit more time to phase Americans out of Medicare, or at least into a more sustainable version of it if the program isn’t eliminated.
The Mayo Clinic Speaks
Senator Reid, when The Mayo Clinic, possibly the most respected medical establishment in the nation, dislikes your bill, you are in trouble.
President Obama and The Mayo Clinic have worked together on health care reform this year. Mayo has critiqued the health care reform efforts before, but also praised efforts on payment reform. However, consider the following regarding the current Senate bill: “Expanding this system [Medicare] to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.? Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance.? This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation?s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.”
Mayo spends a fraction what the most expensive Medicare-accepting hospitals do on patients and uses fewer resources by far. When they can’t break even on Medicare, who can? Yet Democrats want to expand Medicare? Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was on MSNBC the other night- I was in the gym and decided to watch Keith Olbermann for a few minutes- and he fully supported the expanded Medicare concept. That alone is almost enough for me to oppose it, though when a single-payer advocate in Congress supports it as well and Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation is against it the opposition becomes complete.
Mayo has its critics- but many of those critics merely claim Mayo can keep costs down because it has patients that are less racially diverse, wealthier, etc. Those critics add to the case Mayo makes above, because if Mayo does have the advantages critics claim and still can’t break even on Medicare reimbursement, how can the vast majority of the rest of the nation’s hospitals even come close?
Liberals make the argument that Medicare brought millions of elderly people out of poverty- this may or may not be true, but the simple fact is that many or perhaps even most Congressional Democrats don’t have a clue about financial sustainability- granted, nor do most Congressional Republicans- and by expanding Medicare they hasten the bankruptcy of America.
Government Responsibilities: Defense, Roads, Treaties…Calories?
It had to happen- Congress wants to force certain restaurants to put caloric intake on their menus. Of course, it’s not just any restaurants- just the evil fast food restaurants. The ones putting a gun to America’s head and making us get fat.
Were our legislators not Democrats intent on taking over every aspect of our lives, this would be a joke. Unfortunately, that is what is required in the two health care reform bills on Capitol Hill. There are also two separate bills requiring the same thing. The goal, you see, is to help Americans lose weight and to overall become healthier. Of course, rather than go after fat Americans, the government is going after yet another business providing a wanted service.
I have a question for the legislators supporting this bill?(actually, a whole bunch, but I’ll limit it to one): do you really think Americans don’t know fast food isn’t healthy? The article linked above does a good job of telling both sides, and one of the critiques of the bill is that price will dictate intake of fast food far more than what’s in it for many people. Perhaps you could concentrate on getting out of the way of the economy so that it can recover and people will have more money to buy healthier food.
Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform
A few months ago, I wrote on Townsend?s Newsweek opinion supporting abortion and other non-Catholic beliefs. Now, she?s at it again, this time saying that the American bishops are ignoring health care over what she makes clear are minor concerns over abortion.
I don?t understand pro-choice Catholics. The Church has been against abortion since time unknown, and these Catholics want it to compromise? Why not join the Church in helping the poor, the homeless, orphans, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?and couples with marital problems? By helping the Church do these things, Townsend would take away much of the ?need? for abortions, as poorer, single woman who become ?unintentionally pregnant? tend to have a higher number of abortions than married, affluent women.
Townsend clearly doesn?t understand the Church?s view on abortion, as is made clear when she writes the following:
Why is it that the bishops are more concerned with restricting millions of American women from making health care decisions that are best for them and their families than they are with ensuring that millions of Americans ? women, men, children, immigrants, the poor, the middle class ? get much-needed health insurance?
As a Catholic, I dare say it?s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging ?those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life? to ?stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.?
Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can?t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?
There are at least three major flaws with Townsend?s statements above. First, pro-life stances?are pro-healthcare reform. After all, the Church believes abortion is murder, and if health care reform is to be about improving life, health, happiness etc., than the Church?s position is 100% pro-health care reform.
Secondly, note what the Church did and did not do in the Missouri example Townsend uses. First, it asked people against the current health care reform efforts to support getting a pro-life amendment in. Essentially, the Church was asking its more conservative members to support saving the lives of unborn children by helping to?pass health care reform, despite those members? opposition to the latter. Secondly, the Church did not say- again, according to the limited information Townsend provides- that it wanted health care reform to fail. Instead, it specifically said it wanted the amendment included to pass health care reform.
Thirdly, the Church will never support abortion policies within our lifetimes. However, since it is clearly willing to give its substantial endorsement to a Senate bill that includes pro-life policies, perhaps Townsend could open her eyes to this fact and realize that by compromising on abortion, Democrats would already likely have a bill nearing completion in the Senate. As much as I dislike giving advice to Democrats, in this case it seems to be a no-brainer. Pass a pro-life amendment, you likely pass health care reform.
Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats didn?t get the memo. The Nelson/Hatch amendment mirroring the House Stupak amendment was tabled- essentially killed- yesterday. Also unfortunately, AllahPundit thinks Nelson left himself some wiggle room on filibustering a final Senate bill if it does not include the amendment. Let?s hope not, for the sake of millions of helpless unborn children who are currently at risk from this bill. Let?s contact the offices of Senators Nelson, Casey, Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan and Bayh, the six Democrats who voted for the amendment, and make certain they kill any bill that does not get the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Government Pays More Health Care Than Private Industry
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has released information showing that government spends more on health care than the private sector. While this should come as no surprise- the vast majority of health care costs are borne in the last months to years of life, after all, and that is what Medicare is for-? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is taking full advantage of the information to once again show how government is the problem in health care spending.
RightSideNews.com, where I found the above information at, also compares a number of government health care negatives not as well-known as they should be. Take a look at the first link’s comparative information- it’s kind of interesting when contrasting Medicare with the private sector.
P.S. Coburn is also causing problems with Democrats in Congress- many of whom are backing his amendment for all Members of Congress to join a public option if it’s legalized. Kudos to those Democrats who have so far volunteered to join the public option if it passes, and support the Coburn amendment. I disagree with their public option support, but respect their putting their money and health care where their mouths are.
