Before you jump on me for using improper English, permit me to explain myself. I'm not saying that the Obama Administration and the Democrats can't do anything right. With the exception of killing terrorists using drones, that's true of course but that isn't what I mean. My point is that with the government shutdown, they are supposed to be doing nothing and they are even screwing that up. Let's look at a few examples.
Once the government shutdown went into effect, the first thing the Administration did was deploy its "flying monkeys" better known as its cabinet secretaries to use their departments to inflict additional pain on the American citizenry. They went about shutting down facilities and services that cost the government nothing (at least in the short run) - things like the National Mall (that big open grassy area in downtown DC), the open air monuments such as the WWII Memorial, and the small parking spaces at the scenic overlooks along the George Washington Parkway which runs along the Potomac River. They even went to the trouble of closing bike paths, turning off the drinking fountains around the Mall, and turning off the "Panda Cam" at the National Zoo! Seriously? These actions actually cost additional money to prevent Americans from enjoying things that cost nothing to remain open!
Listening to the president and the Democrats talking about those "holding guns to heads", "terrorists", "holding hostages", "strapping bombs to their chests"and vows to not negotiate with terrorists, I thought for sure they were talking about Al Qaeda, the Iranians, President Asad of Syria, or President Putin of Russia. Imagine my astonishment when I found out that they were talking about their fellow Americans in the other political party and as a matter of fact they refused to even talk to them. The president however had no problem calling the new Iranian president, Rouhani. Apparently, Republicans are the real terrorists and they won't talk to them even to help end the government funding impasse. I would think that would be one of the few things they should have on their plate during the shutdown if they are truly interested in getting the government up and running again.
The Democrats began looking for examples of people were being hurt by the shutdown. They found that about 200 people were unable to take part in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) because it was shut down. This includes about 30 children being prevented from receiving their treatments for cancer. The joke was on them though because the Republican House sent an appropriation bill over to the Democrat Senate to fund the NIH but Sen Harry Reid (D- NV) refused to allow it to come to a vote. When asked about this by Dana Bash of CNN (a highly regarded member of the liberal media elite), Reid had a "Did I just say that out loud?" moment. Bash asked, "But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Reid replied "Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own." He then went on to insult Bash saying, "This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you're irresponsible and reckless …" He spent the next several days backtracking. This wasn't the only funding bill that the Democrat Senate refused to approve. Reid led the Senate in blocking funding to keep open the national parks, pay for veterans benefits, and pay the National Guard. The Democrats would have you believe that the 12 federal appropriations bills have always been rolled up into a single omnibus bill. However this is only a relatively recent phenomenon so their complaint about being asked to vote on funding the government piecemeal is a bit disingenuous.
I think most everyone agrees that there is a lot of blame to go around for the government shutdown. But just as with the sequestration when the unguided tours ( read zero cost to the government) of the White House were stopped, President Obama and his minions in the Democrat controlled Senate once again demonstrate they can't do "nothing" right and are looking increasingly petty, mean, vindictive and spiteful doing it.
Reader comments are invited. Click on "No comments" below to be the first to reply.
Ken, this is Bobby Bledsoe responding. I cannot figure out how to add my name to the "Comment as" below and felt it would have less meaning if left as anonymous. I have read your posts periodically and respect your position. However, I think it is safe to say that we do not agree on many of the issues you have raised. If you really invite debate then I will gladly wade into it on this one if kept in good humor and civility.
ReplyDeleteYour post on balance highlights petty issues that do not measure to the same level of the mess the Republicans have created. The Senate has sent a clean spending bill to the House. Boehner won't put it to a vote. Instead the House is trying to save face by proposing individual appropriations bills that will piece meal funding for parts of the government that they like and withhold funding for those they don't, namely the ACA. The ACA is the law of the land, passed by both houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Obama won reelection in arguably a landslide as per the electoral college and Dems held their majority in the Senate even though they had twice as many seats up for reelection than the Republicans. Repealing the ACA was front and center in the Republican platform. They lost. The people have spoken by the ballot much louder than any opinion poll that you want to quote that suggests the ACA should be repealed or that a majority of Americans are not for it.
The Republicans I used to support were pro-business. Using the US credit rating as leverage for political posturing is a dangerous game and is adversely impacting our economy, markets, and the Dollar as a bellwether currency. This is not taken from any MBA text book. It is bad policy to send any message that we would even consider defaulting on our commitments.
Obama and the Dems have no reason to "negotiate" with the Republicans. The Republicans have backed themselves into a corner. ACA must fail because they say it is bad policy and have voted against it unanimously. I've lost count of how many times the House has voted for repeal. There are key provisions in the ACA that undisputably benefits all Americans and despite its unintended consequences will prove a huge success. It will enhance the value and quality of medical care that each American citizen will receive. The Republicans must do everything in its power to make it fail as they have staked their future on it's demise.
The ACA is a very ambitious attempt at righting what was otherwise an unsustainable medical system, i.e. medical bills were the leading cause of bankruptcies, uninsured patients using emergency room care have sent costs spiraling out of control, insurance companies using unfair tactics to prevent coverage or deny coverage to the people that need it most, etc, etc. It is a never ending loop that must be broken.
The US can do much better and the ACA is a step in the right direction. The ACA is not perfect. We should focus on the unintended consequences that are inherent in any widesweeping legislation and improve, not repeal, the law as Obama has welcomed.
I predict that the Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of history with their current stand and tactics to defund the ACA and placing at risk our credit rating, economy, and reputation in the global community.
Hey Bobby,
DeleteThanks for the comment. Sorry it is difficult to use the comment function. I have tried to figure out how to change it but have not been successful.
I completely agree that something needs to be done about the cost of healthcare but I am always leery of ambitious government programs especially when we already have two 800lb gorillas in the room - Social Security and Medicare. The problem is that once we launch these enormous programs, they can't be undone. Someone once said the closest thing to eternity we will ever see on this earth is a government program. The stakes are very high and good intentions won't be an acceptable excuse if things go very, very wrong as even Max Baucus (D-MT) "author of the bill" seems to anticipate when he says the bill is a train wreck. As you point out, there are some very good things in the bill. However, I think those could have been done in separate, easy to comprehend, and fully thought out bills as opposed to the 2,800 page monstrosity that we ended up with. Incidentally, it has spawned over 70,000 pages of new regulations. And it doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy when we are told the bill has to be passed before we can see what’s in it. It also makes me nervous when 16,000 new IRS agents are needed to help run the program - especially in light of the recent revelation that the IRS has been targeting people and groups for their political affiliation. Lastly, when it comes time to decide whether someone gets treatment or “a pain pill” my guess is the McElroy’s and the Bledsoe’s get the “pain pills” and the Pelosi’s, Kennedy’s, and the rest of the political prima donnas get the “Cadillac” treatment.
continued:
ReplyDeleteI don't find the "law of the land" argument very convincing as our history is full of examples of laws that were passed, signed and upheld by the Supreme Court that were truly awful. Additionally, you have to take into account that to get to the “law of the land” point some pretty extraordinary events took place. Scott Brown was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts of all places specifically to be the 41st vote in the Senate to prevent passage of the bill. The Senate had to use a parliamentary maneuver - reconciliation - to get around the 2/3 majority requirement for new spending and circumvent Brown’s vote. Reconciliation was never intended to be used for something like that. The argument that the election was all about healthcare and the people agreed with the Democrats isn’t as straight forward as it would seem. Yes the president was re-elected in 2012. However, the Democrats lost the House in the next election following passage of the AHA in large part due to the election of Tea Party candidates. Those same representatives were re-elected in 2012 just like President Obama. As unpopular as Congress is, in general, when asked, almost everyone says they like their representative - it’s just the other 434 they think are rotten. Even if the election was won over healthcare, how it was sold is not how it is working out. I doubt very seriously if President Obama had said, “It will end denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and your kids can stay on your policy until they are 26 but it will cost $3.6T (4x the original estimate), your average premium will go up $7500 per year (not down $2500 per year), there’s no guarantee that you can keep your doctor or current plan, and 30 million Americans will still be uninsured, it would have gotten him re-elected.
As intransigent as the Republicans appear, that is how divided government works. To blame the whole mess on them isn’t fair since the Congress hasn’t passed a budget in over 5 years including the years when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. We shouldn’t have to deal with the issue of Continuing Resolutions to begin with. If you don’t agree with piece meal funding of the government, at least that is legal as opposed to piece meal implementation of the law which isn’t. The president has no authority to delay implementation of parts of the bill. That was one of the two last conditions the Republicans in the House are asking for - don’t delay the employer mandate and don’t provide special subsidies for the Congress and their staffs.
As for the “full faith and credit of the US Government” and the debt ceiling, don’t confuse those with the CR issue. They are being conflated by the politicians. It is funny how it wasn’t such a big deal when Sen. Obama voted twice to not raise the debt ceiling. We take in about $238M a day in tax revenue and our bond interest amounts to about $30M a day - we can and must pay our creditors. The 14th Amendment demands it by the way. It might be hard to do but the Treasury has to figure out how. It is the law. They have no choice. The US government won’t default; it’s not going to happen. That is just a bunch of scare tactics.
You are right; the Republicans are now backed into a corner but to paraphrase Sun Tzu: Unless you wish a fight to the death, allow your opponent a way to retreat. President Obama and Harry Reid would do well to consider those words. I would think Mr. Obama would have learned that from Vladimir Putin who provided him the same type “out” over Syria.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. These are my thoughts, feel free to reply.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt is absurd that the Senate requires 60 votes to avoid a filibuster to even allow a bill to be put to the floor for a vote. I am certain the filibuster was never intended to do that. The measures used to bypass an absurd requirement does not delegitimize the law. It is the law of the land and should be enacted. Your opinion on how lousy or my opinion on how great it is is no longer relevant in that regard.
The Republicans have not submitted a plan or even a conceptual alternative if the ACA were repealed. So we have been given a choice; accept either the ACA or the status quo with no foreseeable alternatives.
The status quo is unsustainable. I would welcome a healthy debate with anyone that would suggest otherwise. So given this choice, I support the ACA and hope our elected reps get their acts together to enforce this legislation for the benefit it is intended.
In any case, I don't see where your numbers are coming from on the forecast cost increase or the increase in average premiums. The premiums published on the exchanges that were just opened would suggest otherwise. The updated forecast from earlier this year by the CBO would also suggest the overall budget costs are still in line with the original projections at the time the bill was proposed.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
To address your other points, Baucus made these comments to Sebelius in May of this year. They were legitimate concerns about informing small business on how to comply with the requirements. He was also concerned about the exchanges opening on time (which they did). There is so much bad information floating around (I can only guess who is behind this) that it is even more challenging for people to understand the facts and get them the relevant information they need. Threat of death panels is one example that has been used as scare tactics and disinformation. Their existence in the law is completely debunked. They don't exist.
The Republicans' actions are further alienating themselves from me as an ex-Republican. I do not even recognize the party that I used to support.
What then is the purpose of the filibuster? No Republicans we allowed to even present any input during the writing of the AHA. Most are suggesting allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines. I'm not sure why one can only buy insurance in the state where you live. Also, Republicans have advocated health savings accounts and catastrophic coverage for the real big but relatively rare items. As for Baucus' statement regarding the exchanges not opening on time, it is true they opened but they certainly wheren't ready. Even liberals on TV - I watched reporters on CNN try - couldn't gain access. The gov't had 3 years the get this ready. It can spy on every single one of our emails and telephone calls but it can't get a website to work properly? I'll check your CBO link, that is where I thought my numbers came from. By the way, just a few days ago the Canadian press reported that their much vaunted single-payer national healthcare system is in trouble and is unsustainable. AHA is yet again another pyramid scheme by the government. The concept doesn't work when done by individuals which is why they are illegal and it won't work just because the gov't is the one trying it. Death panels is an inflamatory term however when you have a person or persons tell people they can't have life saving medical treatment - a rose by any other name. Just a few months ago a 10 year old girl needed a lung transplant. Sebelius wouldn't make an exception for her to be on the adult recipient list until a judge forced her to allow it - this even though her doctor recommended it. And she wasn't asking to be put at the head of the line - she had been waiting for 18 months. At least to her and her family - the HHS Secretary would have been a "death panel" of one.
ReplyDeleteI am more of a Conservative than a Republican - mainly because I don't think they are very good politicians. Your points about them especially in regard to this current issue are well taken.
I have personally taken more of a Libertarian philosophy with regard to social issues. I may not agree with the "right or wrongs" of certain personal choices people make but I don't believe the gov't should be involved in most of them especially when it comes to paying for them.
Part of the problem with healthcare came about with the rise of the HMOs another great gov't idea. Prior to that, if you needed an asprin, you paid the 5 cents yourself. Now the price has been driven up so that it cost something like $100 if given in a hospital.
You mentioned that the GOP used to be pro-business. That may have changed but the Democrat party is certainly not a better option. They are absolutely the enemy of your industry - the energy sector.
Again, thanks for weighing in. I'll check my numbers regarding the CBO.
Cheers! - The Carnivore