Having explained to you, the reader why the Healthcare Bill, in its current form should not be passed and established the case that the bill is indeed opposed by the majority of Americans for a variety of reasons, I will now give my alternative. For you see, it is easy to oppose something but it is much more difficult to present a true alternative. I also believe that if Republicans and Democrats could truly work together on a new bill it could become a harbinger of sorts of a new era in Washington. A return to the days when true statesmen created bills that really were based on compromise.
My proposal is based on the idea that most Americans are indeed themselves fiscal conservatives. Liberals point to the CBO numbers which show that the bill will actually decrease the defecit over the decade. I do agree with this. Yes it WILL decrease the defecit, but only over the decade. You see the CBO accounts for the fact that taxes for the legislation will begin flowing in sometime next year. At the same time, the benefits and entitlement programs in the bill don't kick in until three or four years later. Now it of course makes sense that if you spend three years taking money in without spending it, you would have a surplus. But this legislation is not for only the next decade, this will become the norm much like Social Security and Medicare have become. And all of the CBO numbers are based around the idea that the economy will indeed rebound very shortly and we will be back to Bush era economic numbers. Many business experts are predicting that unemployment will hover around ten percent for the next five years. Therfore I ask, can we realistically believe that Healthcare, in its present form, can actually reduce our defecit in the long run? The answer is of course no. Unless taxes go up radically, we cannot expect to cover thirty million Americans without increasing the defecit.
Therefore, I propose that this bill be scrapped. If the Democrats really want to help America, they need to come across the aisle and work with the Republicans in order to create true moderate reform. The problem is that Nancy Pelosi has created a sense of hyperpartisanship and has essentially banished the GOP out of the political process. And yes, before you tell me, I know that the Republicans did the same thing when they were in power. And I point that out as often as I can on this blog. However, to use the classic mom phrase, two wrongs never make a right. And they don't. The Democrats have the oppurtunity to truly create a historic situation: Bring back moderation. Barack Obama really could become a great president if he truly and honestly moved to the center and stayed there. The people elected him to be our leader. Not the leader of the left. And I will reiterate that the Republicans were just as guilty when Bush governed from the right. However we need a centrist now more than ever. And if President Obama is not that man, than I think that his party will be handed a defeat in November and he himself will be defeated in 2012. However if ce can indeed shift to the center, he has the oppurtunity to make his presidency truly historic and not just because of the color of his skin.
I propose that Congress pass healthcare in a series of bills, more akin to the New Deal. FDR fought the Depression not with one sweeping bill but with a series of bills. In similar fashion Congress should reform the different aspects of healthcare with individual bills that both parties can agree to. TORT reform, insurance across state lines, malpractice lawsuit reform, moderates can agree to all of these and create proposals that a true majority can embrace. Votes should not be along party lines. Only the fringe radicals like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul of the world should oppose true moderate reform, not half the country. We simply cannot continue to pass things with half the country screaming yes and the other half screaming no. This creates a toxic political atmosphere which in turn creates the very gridlock that we all are so sick of. Therefore I appeal to you the people: Let us truly establish honest compromise. Let us return to pragmatic moderation.
3.17.2010
Healthcare and You Part II: The Majority Strikes Back
Building off of yesterday's discussion, today I will talk about the meaning of Senator Brown's victory back in January and why I believe a Republican took the late Senator Kennedy's seat in the bluest of states.
First off, let me establish the fact that America is a center-right nation. Regardless of any individual election, our country remains moderately conservative in nature. This is an important thing to understand as many overlook this fact. What the Democrats did in November of 2008 is the exact same thing that Republicans did in 2002 and 1994. Whenever a party does very well at the polls, they always misinterpret the result as a radical shift in public perception. I would argue that elections are in fact instances in which America attempts to re-balance herself. Prior to 1994 America was very much thrown to the left. We had just elected a charismatic young governor, the first baby boomer, as our president. Congress was very much to the left. The Democrats interpreted this as a sign that America had itself shifted into a more liberal form. And then we had 1994. The year when Republicans took back Congress with a vengeance that would make Stalin blush. Newt Gingrich and his new right took it to Clinton. Wasting our time with witch hunts throughout the administration all because they thought that that was what we the people wanted. As you can guess this is not what we want. In reality, all we want is a government that will protect us while staying out of our way. And we proved it when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. I realize that Mr. Perot would take offense, but it is true. The exact same thing happened in 2006. The Democrats took Congress back from a party whose leader at the time really was more of a "divider" rather than a "uniter" Perhaps this man was too busy being the "decider," but we will leave that for another day perhaps. America's attempt to move back to the center culminated in 2008. A year when we elected our first minority president who coincidentally also promised to end partisanship. We gave the Democrats a filibuster proof Senate and we gave Speaker Pelosi an overwhelming majority in the House. It was high time to get things back to the center, right? Wrong. President Obama has proven to be the most liberal president since JFK. He has consistently ignored legitimate concerns from the right dismissing the Tea Parties as "folks waving tea bags around." Speaker Pelosi has proved to lead the most partisan congress in recent memory. And to top it off now they are attempting to force Healthcare through against the will of the people. Well the people have spoken back.
Scott Brown's victory in January for the seat of the late Ted Kennedy was a clear message to Washington: Take us back to the center Mr. President. To put this in perspective, let us discuss Massachusetts. The first state in the union to allow gay marriage. It was one of the first to create its own universal healthcare system. And it is a state where the Democrats control 90% of the legislature. Prior to Senator Brown, the composition of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation was completely Democratic. This was clearly a message to the Democratic Party. Now Liberals argue that Martha Coakley ran a poor campaign and that is, while completely true, not really the main point. This seat is essentially a Kennedy family possession. A Democrat should be able to win this seat sitting down over a Republican. This election along with recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey are symbolic o the people screaming no to the intense shift to the left.
Sadly the President Obama and the Democrats have not taken notice of this and continue trying to ram their agenda through. And now Speaker Pelosi is attempting to pass the Senate Bill without actually voting for it. The controversial Deem and Pass procedure would allow the Senate bill to pass given that the House would only vote on the Reconciliation amendments. This makes it easier for the moderate Democrats to vote on the bill without actually taking responsibility for doing so. What all of us need is moderation. And I can only hope that the GOP, if they do take back the House in November, will not make the very same mistake. They need to take us back to the center, and leave us there.
First off, let me establish the fact that America is a center-right nation. Regardless of any individual election, our country remains moderately conservative in nature. This is an important thing to understand as many overlook this fact. What the Democrats did in November of 2008 is the exact same thing that Republicans did in 2002 and 1994. Whenever a party does very well at the polls, they always misinterpret the result as a radical shift in public perception. I would argue that elections are in fact instances in which America attempts to re-balance herself. Prior to 1994 America was very much thrown to the left. We had just elected a charismatic young governor, the first baby boomer, as our president. Congress was very much to the left. The Democrats interpreted this as a sign that America had itself shifted into a more liberal form. And then we had 1994. The year when Republicans took back Congress with a vengeance that would make Stalin blush. Newt Gingrich and his new right took it to Clinton. Wasting our time with witch hunts throughout the administration all because they thought that that was what we the people wanted. As you can guess this is not what we want. In reality, all we want is a government that will protect us while staying out of our way. And we proved it when Clinton was re-elected in 1996. I realize that Mr. Perot would take offense, but it is true. The exact same thing happened in 2006. The Democrats took Congress back from a party whose leader at the time really was more of a "divider" rather than a "uniter" Perhaps this man was too busy being the "decider," but we will leave that for another day perhaps. America's attempt to move back to the center culminated in 2008. A year when we elected our first minority president who coincidentally also promised to end partisanship. We gave the Democrats a filibuster proof Senate and we gave Speaker Pelosi an overwhelming majority in the House. It was high time to get things back to the center, right? Wrong. President Obama has proven to be the most liberal president since JFK. He has consistently ignored legitimate concerns from the right dismissing the Tea Parties as "folks waving tea bags around." Speaker Pelosi has proved to lead the most partisan congress in recent memory. And to top it off now they are attempting to force Healthcare through against the will of the people. Well the people have spoken back.
Scott Brown's victory in January for the seat of the late Ted Kennedy was a clear message to Washington: Take us back to the center Mr. President. To put this in perspective, let us discuss Massachusetts. The first state in the union to allow gay marriage. It was one of the first to create its own universal healthcare system. And it is a state where the Democrats control 90% of the legislature. Prior to Senator Brown, the composition of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation was completely Democratic. This was clearly a message to the Democratic Party. Now Liberals argue that Martha Coakley ran a poor campaign and that is, while completely true, not really the main point. This seat is essentially a Kennedy family possession. A Democrat should be able to win this seat sitting down over a Republican. This election along with recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey are symbolic o the people screaming no to the intense shift to the left.
Sadly the President Obama and the Democrats have not taken notice of this and continue trying to ram their agenda through. And now Speaker Pelosi is attempting to pass the Senate Bill without actually voting for it. The controversial Deem and Pass procedure would allow the Senate bill to pass given that the House would only vote on the Reconciliation amendments. This makes it easier for the moderate Democrats to vote on the bill without actually taking responsibility for doing so. What all of us need is moderation. And I can only hope that the GOP, if they do take back the House in November, will not make the very same mistake. They need to take us back to the center, and leave us there.
3.16.2010
Healthcare and You Part I
This morning I would like to discuss the healthcare debate. I do this for the sole reason that it is well, the elephant in the room. This is a political forum and if I were to ignore the most prevalent issue in American politics today I would simply be doing a disservice to you the reader. So bear with me as I commence with this part one of a three part civil tirade against the current healthcare bill.
First and foremost, why pass healthcare as one sweeping national initiative? The democrats would have us essentially put 1/5 of a 15 trillion dollar economy on the line and experiment with our healthcare system using at best unproven and untested methods. Don't get me wrong, US healthcare is broken. And it does need to be fixed. However this should be done incrementally and responsibly with consensus on both sides. The Democrats cannot just ram legislation with at least half of the country screaming no. Liberals are always the ones stressing the rights of the minority. Even if 40 percent of the American populace absolutely did not want this bill, would that not cause you to wait and consider what you are about to do. Again, I am not defending the Republicans either. The way they attempt to block everything is despicable. However responsibility to lead falls on the shoulders of the majority. And leadership does not mean only do what you want and do not consider, in most cases, the opinions of half the country. Leadership's keywords are compromise and pragmatic consensus, not controversy and ambiguous discord.
In order to better illustrate the situation, I will present to you the reader a scenario, and you tell me what you think. You are married. You make slightly more money than your spouse and you are considering buying a car. Now here is the question: Do you go out and buy a car without considering any concerns your spouse may have? For better or worse, the Republicans and Democrats are married. And the Democrats, currently the dominant partner in the relationship have decided to force a massive Healthcare bill, or new car, on us, the kids.
Stay tuned for Part II in which I will discuss Scott Brown and what his place is in the debate.
First and foremost, why pass healthcare as one sweeping national initiative? The democrats would have us essentially put 1/5 of a 15 trillion dollar economy on the line and experiment with our healthcare system using at best unproven and untested methods. Don't get me wrong, US healthcare is broken. And it does need to be fixed. However this should be done incrementally and responsibly with consensus on both sides. The Democrats cannot just ram legislation with at least half of the country screaming no. Liberals are always the ones stressing the rights of the minority. Even if 40 percent of the American populace absolutely did not want this bill, would that not cause you to wait and consider what you are about to do. Again, I am not defending the Republicans either. The way they attempt to block everything is despicable. However responsibility to lead falls on the shoulders of the majority. And leadership does not mean only do what you want and do not consider, in most cases, the opinions of half the country. Leadership's keywords are compromise and pragmatic consensus, not controversy and ambiguous discord.
In order to better illustrate the situation, I will present to you the reader a scenario, and you tell me what you think. You are married. You make slightly more money than your spouse and you are considering buying a car. Now here is the question: Do you go out and buy a car without considering any concerns your spouse may have? For better or worse, the Republicans and Democrats are married. And the Democrats, currently the dominant partner in the relationship have decided to force a massive Healthcare bill, or new car, on us, the kids.
Stay tuned for Part II in which I will discuss Scott Brown and what his place is in the debate.
3.14.2010
A brief introduction
Well here I am. I decided to create this blog in order to express my thoughts publicly. I had gotten positive response to the idea, so I figured I would try it out. A brief background about myself is in order:
I am truly a paradox. I am a first generation immigrant to the United States, living in a blue collar family, and living in a very safe blue state. Considering all of these facts, conventional wisdom would conclude that I should be a liberal. However, as one could guess from the heading, I do indeed consider myself to be a conservative. I believe in the core principles of free enterprise and limited government. I believe that people know best how to spend their own money and do not need a big government to make those decisions for it. And I also believe in the invisible hand that is present in a capitalist economy. In my view the only true responsibility of government should be to provide a safe and reliable foundation from which individuals can pursue their own aspirations. Call me crazy, but I actually believe in the ability of human beings to, for the most part, look after themselves. Much like the stubborn elephant, I generally am well established in my ways and will typically see no reason to change my thinking. However I am also a pragmatic conservative. According to Merriam-Webster pragmatism is:
Pronunciation: \ˈprag-mə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Definition: a practical approach to problems and affairs
We must pursue our goals not without listening to constructive ideas from all sides. We cannot realistically achieve all of our goals and need to use true compromise to get things done. It is never practical to ignore the other side. However in recent years both sides have frozen themselves into such a mentality. The amount of different sources of news as well as opinion have done much to further polarize society into opposing camps. And I will concede that blogs such as this one typically only serve to increase such sentiment. However I offer opinions as a, well, pragmatic alternative. I stand for the reunification of America.
I believe that politics today are very much impractical as well as inefficient. Washington is bogged down by partisan line bickering as well as the permanent election season mentality. Today politics in Washington are characterized by a bully mentality in the majority party and an obstructionist attitude in the minority. Both parties are guilty of this, and we all know it. With each president, we are promised a "new era" in politics. One that "transcends" party lines. However with each president we see the problem only worsen. Bush's government was more gridlocked than Clinton's, and now Obama's is worse than Bush's. And then when a member of either party actually stands up for his or her convictions and does indeed reach across the aisle attempting honest compromise on a particular issue, the parties paint those individuals as cowards and traitors. I hold that these very men and women are the most courageous of us all. They put their public careers and reputations on the line in the name of true progress. These individuals are the true patriots. They are loyal to the people not to the party. They are public servants in the most classical sense. Therefore let this elephant leave you with the idea that if we are to truly break through all the gridlock, we must really take it to our elected representatives. We must demand bipartisanship from our elected officials or risk losing our country forever to the bitter forces of divisiveness.
I am truly a paradox. I am a first generation immigrant to the United States, living in a blue collar family, and living in a very safe blue state. Considering all of these facts, conventional wisdom would conclude that I should be a liberal. However, as one could guess from the heading, I do indeed consider myself to be a conservative. I believe in the core principles of free enterprise and limited government. I believe that people know best how to spend their own money and do not need a big government to make those decisions for it. And I also believe in the invisible hand that is present in a capitalist economy. In my view the only true responsibility of government should be to provide a safe and reliable foundation from which individuals can pursue their own aspirations. Call me crazy, but I actually believe in the ability of human beings to, for the most part, look after themselves. Much like the stubborn elephant, I generally am well established in my ways and will typically see no reason to change my thinking. However I am also a pragmatic conservative. According to Merriam-Webster pragmatism is:
Pronunciation: \ˈprag-mə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Definition: a practical approach to problems and affairs
We must pursue our goals not without listening to constructive ideas from all sides. We cannot realistically achieve all of our goals and need to use true compromise to get things done. It is never practical to ignore the other side. However in recent years both sides have frozen themselves into such a mentality. The amount of different sources of news as well as opinion have done much to further polarize society into opposing camps. And I will concede that blogs such as this one typically only serve to increase such sentiment. However I offer opinions as a, well, pragmatic alternative. I stand for the reunification of America.
I believe that politics today are very much impractical as well as inefficient. Washington is bogged down by partisan line bickering as well as the permanent election season mentality. Today politics in Washington are characterized by a bully mentality in the majority party and an obstructionist attitude in the minority. Both parties are guilty of this, and we all know it. With each president, we are promised a "new era" in politics. One that "transcends" party lines. However with each president we see the problem only worsen. Bush's government was more gridlocked than Clinton's, and now Obama's is worse than Bush's. And then when a member of either party actually stands up for his or her convictions and does indeed reach across the aisle attempting honest compromise on a particular issue, the parties paint those individuals as cowards and traitors. I hold that these very men and women are the most courageous of us all. They put their public careers and reputations on the line in the name of true progress. These individuals are the true patriots. They are loyal to the people not to the party. They are public servants in the most classical sense. Therefore let this elephant leave you with the idea that if we are to truly break through all the gridlock, we must really take it to our elected representatives. We must demand bipartisanship from our elected officials or risk losing our country forever to the bitter forces of divisiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
