The Cure for The Common Republican-A Pedagogical Argument Against Healthcare Reform
Republican resistance to healthcare reform (or, more appropriately, a federal takeover of the healthcare industry) has been, and continues to be strategically ambiguous, if not just plain quirky. Their latest tactic, as reported by Bloomberg, is “telling House Democrats they can’t rely on the Senate to approve the [desired] changes [in the healthcare bill], which congressional leaders are trying to navigate through a process called budget reconciliation.” By painting their constituents in the senate as untrustworthy, Republicans hope to … convince house democrats to give up healthcare reform altogether? Maybe? The problem with such political tactics is a lack of vision; Republican leadership has failed to effectively communicate what should be its central message–that any healthcare reform legislation that expands federal control of the healthcare industry, be it through regulations, subsidies, or social programs, is bad policy and will, inevitably, increase costs and stifle innovation. It’s a simple, empirically backed argument that speaks truth to the common sense of even the most uneducated american. Of course, taking such a position to its logical extreme would require opposition to not only healthcare reform, but Medicare as it now stands. And, like Social Security, many Republicans see Medicare as politically untouchable. Why? Who knows. The last true dismantling of a federal social program, in the form of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, worked wonders. The same could, and should be done for Medicare. De-regulation–now that’s a strategy.
The Principled Pragmatist-Palin’s Advice to The Tea Party
In an interview with Fox News, Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party “take over the Republican Party … Get them to see the light.” While such a statement carries a certain air of hypocrisy considering Palin’s endorsement of Senator John Mc’Cain over his far more conservative rivals, its inherent wisdom should not be overlooked.
The two-party division that dominates our political world was born only years after the ratification of The Constitution. The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, propounded a larger Federal Government that took a more expansive role in the lives of its citizens. Ironically, it was the Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, that opposed the expansion of the Federal Government, and insisted, rather, that social programs and regulations be left to the control of state governments. While the modern political parties have swapped ideologies, the classical alignment still exists, though, perhaps, somewhat muddled in the minds of individual americans. It is that confusion–the ignorance of fundamental principles–that is to blame for today’s bloated expansion of the Federal Government. Unable to articulate what they believe, modern conservatives, or those who would have allied themselves with the Democrats (or classical liberals) of Jefferson’s day, have, for over eighty years, found themselves voting into office leaders who have actually succeeded in increasing, rather than decreasing the size of the Federal Government. The claim that there exists little difference between Democrats and Republicans is far more axiomatic than many realize. The ideology of Jefferson’s Democratic party–the belief that the Federal Government should be limited to the express powers dictated by the Constitution and that social programs and regulations should be left to state governments–has all but disappeared from the political arena. However, in an age were information is readily accessible, where the average american, by and through the aid of libraries and the internet, can obtain an education far superior to that offered by the university, Jefferson’s voice is heard once more in the mouth of the Tea Party.
As the Tea Party seeks to restore the principles of limited government, it has found its closest allies within the Republican Party. And while many Republicans still believe in the expansion of the Federal Government, the movement would be wise to stay the course, and focus on reforming the party from within, rather than rejecting it from without. Of course, when forced to decide between loyalty to party or loyalty to principle, the movement must remain true, even if it requires voting Democrat or Independent over Republican.
Standing For Something-Why Bipartisan Politics Are Bad For America
Bloomberg reports that “President Barack Obama began yesterday’s health-care summit saying he wanted to find bipartisan ways to fix the health-care system.” But, “By the end, he said he might be left with a partisan path forward.” In other words, President Obama and the Democratic Party may be ready to concede bipartisan defeat, as increasing pressure from Conservatives forces Republican leaders to, once and for all, declare their ideological allegiance. It seems that it is no longer enough to simply smile and kiss babies. The modern politician must believe in something, and vote accordingly. As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon explains, “[o]ne of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis.” Politicians must accept that they will disagree with their colleagues. Oftentimes, such disagreements will be irreconcilable, as differences in principle are bound to produce differences in opinion. However, disagreement is not destructive. Rather, it encourages intellectual discussion and debate, and, by forcing politicians to stand firm in their convictions, provides an opportunity for true leaders to prove themselves worthy of their elected office.
Dividing Lines-The Aftermath of Brown’s Stimulus Vote, Jeb Bush on Charlie Crist’s Socialist Policies
In an article published this morning, The Washington Post details the political backlash against Senator Scott Brown’s (R-MA) decision to vote for increased stimulus spending in the form of the ‘jobs bill’.
A month after being crowned the darling of national conservatives, Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is being branded “Benedict Brown” for siding with Democrats in favor of a jobs bill endorsed by the Obama administration.
However, according to the Post,
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wasn’t particularly perturbed about Brown’s vote, saying his election last month has “made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda.
In other news, Politico reports that Jeb Bush has openly condemned his successor, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and his decision to support last year’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A bold move, considering that Bush’s own brother was responsible for signing The Economic Stimulus Act of the previous year into law. “”I know I’m supposed to be politically correct and I said I was neutral and all that,” Bush said, but added of Crist’s move: “I got a problem with that.” While the former governor called Crist “about the nicest guy I’ve ever met in politics,” Bush called Crist’s support for the stimulus bill a critical “mistake.”” Bush’s words provide a superb example of both diplomacy and leadership, and a sharp contrast to McConnell’s slippery appeal to party politics.
While some may question the significance of drawing fine lines in the political sand, it is nevertheless of the utmost importance that we stand firm on those principles necessary to our country’s success and survival. Any and all votes for federal stimulus and subsidies, the expansion of federal social programs, and increases in federal regulation of private enterprises must be strongly opposed regardless of their source.
However, it is also important that we distinguish between sin and sinner. Although All proponents of socialist legislation, whether Republican or Democrat–Scott Brown or Barack Obama–inhibit progress through their acts, there is no reason why we must question their intentions. Nevertheless, playing nice does not require that we cease to play, but rather, that we play with grace and style. Kindness is not Compromise.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) Holds The Line
The guy just won’t let up. According to The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Coburn has identified at least 640 programs that can be consolidated in order to allow Congress to stay its hand on lifting the debt ceiling. As WSJ puts it:
One message Massachusetts voters sent last week is concern over runaway federal spending. Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is offering Democrats a chance to show they heard that message.
Coburn is doing exactly what every Republican and Democrat should- making sure Congress does not spend beyond its means. That is one of the messages sent by Massachusetts residents last week, and I am grateful to Coburn for holding true to his responsibilities as a United States senator.
What it Means To Be A Conservative
From Austin Russell:
At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand. Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government. That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.
The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.
Harry Reid Needs Sleep
So this is worth only a chuckle, but apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accidentally voted against his own bill before changing his vote. It wouldn’t have made a difference, of course, but it’s still funny.
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.
Stimulus Fail, Part 2 (Part 3? 4?)
The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:
“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”
Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”
Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”
What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)
This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.
George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”
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.
