by Mark Henry
Americans who watched the President’s State of the Union speech hoping for a new kind of “change” will most assuredly be disappointed with what they saw and heard. While Obama did acknowledge coming up short on a number of first year goals, mainly the failure to pass health reform, most of the speech charted a course that continues with the administration’s increasingly unpopular leftist vision for the future.
President Obama’s decision to avoid substantive policy changes manifests an unwillingness to come to grips with the message delivered by blue state Massachusetts voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S Senate. President Obama’s speech revealed a man who has been slightly humbled but completely undeterred from proceeding with an agenda that has become increasingly unpopular with most Americans. His decision to proceed with health reform efforts reveals an imperial like disregard for the wishes of the electorate that is difficult to fathom. Ditto for his comments that we need to proceed with cap and trade.
On a somewhat more positive side, President Obama did propose a jobs bill that purportedly would encourage investment in small business, manufacturing and the creation of green jobs. This does show that this administration is mindful that most Americans would prefer that the federal government focus on improving the dreadful unemployment problem, as opposed to reforming health care.
However, with the 2009 Economic Recovery Act resulting in worse unemployment numbers many in the private sector doubt that the Obama administrations statist centralized planning approach towards stimulating the economy and creating jobs will improve their lot.
President Obama’s new initiative to increase federal support of college programs sounds good but a look behind the curtain of this program is troubling. What Obama proposed was that students going into public service, including the government sector, would be entitled to have their student loans forgiven. The obvious purpose of this would be to drive college graduates into government work and discourage private sector employment. In essence, they would offer a “Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback” to all college students receiving federal aid. It’s all about making big government even bigger. The fingerprints of the big government central planner are all over this one.
This special deal for students who agree to work for the government is a bitter pill for most Americans in the private sector who have suffered in the economic downturn while public employees are riding high, unaffected by the recession. According to a recent USA Today study, 7.3 million people in the private sector have lost their jobs during this recession. On the other hand, between December 2007 and June 2009, federal payrolls grew by nearly 10 percent. To top it off, Office of Personnel Management data reveals that your average federal employee is making about $71,000 per year. This is a whopping 76 percent higher than the average salary earned in the private sector.
When you look at the President’s job creation and college funding programs, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that President Obama is aloof and very disconnected from the economic hardship that the majority of Americans who are not working in the public sector are experiencing.
President Obama is getting a few kudos for proposing a freeze of government spending. On the surface, it sounds fine; however, the proposed freeze may effectively lock in the huge spending increases made by the federal government in 2009. For example, the EPA’s budget increased by approximately 35% in 2009. Freezing such ridiculously high levels of spending hardly qualifies as government belt-tightening.
Additionally, the proposed freeze will limit only discretionary spending which amounts to less than 1% of the federal budget. Will the proposed freeze limit salaries of federal employees? Have to look into that one but I would not bet the farm on it.
Obama’s statist agenda for America stands in stark contrast with the competing vision articulated by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell who ably gave the GOP’s response to the State of the Union Speech. McDonnell quoted Thomas Jefferson as he appealed for a return to principles of limited government.
“It was Thomas Jefferson,” McDonnell said, “who called for ‘A wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry .... and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.’ He was right. Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.”
Governor McDonnell took the Democrats to task for their failed effort to strengthen the economy via massive federal spending. He reminded us that the Democrats promised us that last years’ Economic Recovery Act would create more jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8%. McDonnell pointed out that the economic stimulus has failed as more than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs.
Governor McDonnell then called for a new era of limited government and hearkened back to America’s Founders stating that “As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.”
Many Catholics will find much to like about Governor McDonnell’s vision of a more limited government. This governing philosophy coincides closely with the core Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This Catholic teaching states that when something can be done locally by a smaller simpler organization this is better than central planning type action by a larger and more complex organization. This tenet safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the welfare state in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus wherein he stated that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. According to the Pope, the welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
Catholics would do well to heed Pope John Paul II’s insights on the serious problems of the welfare state. This time tested Catholic teaching helps explain why President Obama is bound and determined to pursue highly unpopular policies like health care reform and cap and trade. I guess tin ears are what it takes to herd the masses into the statist corral.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Coakley Loss Aftermath: Obama Recruiting Kamikazes
January 20, 2010 Washington Post Classified Ad: Wanted: Sitting U.S. Senator or U.S. Congressmen willing to join political suicide mission to salvage takeover of health care. Ideal applicant will be fearless kamikaze type willing to sacrifice political career to advance socialist agenda, however, obedient lemmings also encouraged to apply. Applicant must be willing to disregard the approaching sound of voter’s footsteps or the sight of angry citizens with pitchforks.
After Tuesday’s political Tsunami in Massachusetts, the pool of Democrats willing to fall on the Obama care sword is shrinking dramatically. Democrats in the House and Senate find themselves uncomfortably trapped between a rock and a hard place. Martha Coakley, the political canary in the mine, has expired from the toxic vapors of voter anger directed towards failed big government policies. Democrats running for reelection in the November 2010 elections will be facing an electorate that is decidedly more conservative than the voters in blue state Massachusetts who did the unthinkable; elected a Republican to succeed Ted Kennedy.
With anxiety for their political futures ramping up to all-time career highs, House and Senate Democrats in short order will have to contend with their “too liberal for America” leadership who soon come knocking on their doors for a special mission. The anxious Democratic rank and file will learn that their draft numbers has come up, they have been enlisted into Obama’s army and their first and possibly last assignment will be to ride point on the career ending death march called health reform. Regretably, heading north to Canada like some of them did to escape the draft in the 1970’s is not an option.
The majority of these Democrats will soon rue the day Obama rode into the Beltway on his high horse proclaiming the nebulous mantra of change. The only question is how many Democrats over the next few days and weeks will be heard to mutter under their breaths “not the kind of change I expected”.
Can it be that Obama will have the audacity to push forward with the ever so unpopular health reform initiative, after the Massachusetts upset of Ted Kennedy heir apparent Martha Coakley? Well, Obama’s tin eared response to the electorate’s discontent is coming from the same man who titled his early biography “The Audacity of Hope” so no real surprise there.
What are the pundits saying? Fox News contributor Juan Williams opined that Obama will not be deterred in the least by Martha Coakley’s shocking loss. Instead, Obama will “double up” efforts to get health care reform passed by whatever means, regardless of the political cost.
However, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh ventured that a more centrist strategy is called for, stating that the Democratic party needs to heed the results of the Massachusetts election. Senator Bayh urged his fellow Democrats to move ideologically towards the center and distant itself from the extreme left which has dominated the Democratic leadership recently.
However, Obama and the Senate and House Democratic leadership have so far exhibited a nearly suicidal determination to push forward with their wrongheaded health industry takeover. Democrat leaders have invested so much of their rapidly diminishing political capital that failure is not an option they are willing to consider. As such, they appear to be suffering from the never before diagnosed sickness called health industry takeover syndrome (HITS)
As such, Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are not likely to heed Senator Bayh’s “President Clinton-like” move to the center and start working on less divisive issues. However, if they doggedly pursue health care reform they will likely find it exceedingly difficult to marshal support from their rank and file. If there is a significant defection of Democrats from the shaky health reform coalition, Obama’s last ditch effort to recruit political kamikazes will begin in earnest.
We will soon find out whether Obama will succeed in finding a few feckless Democrat loyalists to shore up the health care initiative’s weakened flank. If Obama and the liberal Democrat leaders obstinately continue pushing health care reform over the objections of the electorate, perhaps the politically shrewdest strategy for the Republicans would be to voice objections but not interfere too much with the Democrats self-destructive behavior.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said “Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.” This might be good advice for Republicans to follow, assuming our country survives intact the onslaught of the extreme leftist ideologues who, for the time being, are still in charge.
By Mark Henry
After Tuesday’s political Tsunami in Massachusetts, the pool of Democrats willing to fall on the Obama care sword is shrinking dramatically. Democrats in the House and Senate find themselves uncomfortably trapped between a rock and a hard place. Martha Coakley, the political canary in the mine, has expired from the toxic vapors of voter anger directed towards failed big government policies. Democrats running for reelection in the November 2010 elections will be facing an electorate that is decidedly more conservative than the voters in blue state Massachusetts who did the unthinkable; elected a Republican to succeed Ted Kennedy.
With anxiety for their political futures ramping up to all-time career highs, House and Senate Democrats in short order will have to contend with their “too liberal for America” leadership who soon come knocking on their doors for a special mission. The anxious Democratic rank and file will learn that their draft numbers has come up, they have been enlisted into Obama’s army and their first and possibly last assignment will be to ride point on the career ending death march called health reform. Regretably, heading north to Canada like some of them did to escape the draft in the 1970’s is not an option.
The majority of these Democrats will soon rue the day Obama rode into the Beltway on his high horse proclaiming the nebulous mantra of change. The only question is how many Democrats over the next few days and weeks will be heard to mutter under their breaths “not the kind of change I expected”.
Can it be that Obama will have the audacity to push forward with the ever so unpopular health reform initiative, after the Massachusetts upset of Ted Kennedy heir apparent Martha Coakley? Well, Obama’s tin eared response to the electorate’s discontent is coming from the same man who titled his early biography “The Audacity of Hope” so no real surprise there.
What are the pundits saying? Fox News contributor Juan Williams opined that Obama will not be deterred in the least by Martha Coakley’s shocking loss. Instead, Obama will “double up” efforts to get health care reform passed by whatever means, regardless of the political cost.
However, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh ventured that a more centrist strategy is called for, stating that the Democratic party needs to heed the results of the Massachusetts election. Senator Bayh urged his fellow Democrats to move ideologically towards the center and distant itself from the extreme left which has dominated the Democratic leadership recently.
However, Obama and the Senate and House Democratic leadership have so far exhibited a nearly suicidal determination to push forward with their wrongheaded health industry takeover. Democrat leaders have invested so much of their rapidly diminishing political capital that failure is not an option they are willing to consider. As such, they appear to be suffering from the never before diagnosed sickness called health industry takeover syndrome (HITS)
As such, Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are not likely to heed Senator Bayh’s “President Clinton-like” move to the center and start working on less divisive issues. However, if they doggedly pursue health care reform they will likely find it exceedingly difficult to marshal support from their rank and file. If there is a significant defection of Democrats from the shaky health reform coalition, Obama’s last ditch effort to recruit political kamikazes will begin in earnest.
We will soon find out whether Obama will succeed in finding a few feckless Democrat loyalists to shore up the health care initiative’s weakened flank. If Obama and the liberal Democrat leaders obstinately continue pushing health care reform over the objections of the electorate, perhaps the politically shrewdest strategy for the Republicans would be to voice objections but not interfere too much with the Democrats self-destructive behavior.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said “Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.” This might be good advice for Republicans to follow, assuming our country survives intact the onslaught of the extreme leftist ideologues who, for the time being, are still in charge.
By Mark Henry
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Catholics Need Not Apply Says Martha Coakley
Catholics who are sitting on the fence in the MA Senatorial race were just handed a big reason to vote for Scott Brown. In Ken Pittman’s Thursday radio program on WBSM-AM in Massachusetts he interviewed Martha Coakley who is a staunch advocate of the current federal health reform legislation. Pittman questioned Coakley on rights of conscience and whether a Catholic doctor who agreed with the Pope’s teachings on contraception should be required to go against those teachings and prescribe emergency contraception. Coakley resorted to the secular liberal playbook employing the canard of separation of Church and State and incredulously asserting that devout Catholics should not work in an emergency room.
To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. What possessed Coakley to make this slap in the face of the 39% of citizens of Massachusetts who are Catholics will be probed in detail in next weeks post mortem of this election.
Coakley’s responses in this radio interview gives Catholic voters a candid glimpse at her judicial, social and political worldview. What you see in Coakley’s minds eye is a shocking degree of hostility towards the First Amendment freedom of religion rights of Catholics. Additionally, her strong support for the very unpopular Democratic health reform initiative, with it’s federal abortion funding, has alienated many voters, Catholic and non-Catholic as well.
As the current Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley should know better that to use the oft misused separation of Church and State metaphor to justify denying religious freedom rights of Catholics. Coakley knows full well that the separation of Church and State principle is not found anywhere in the First Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. To the contrary, the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of all religious, including Catholics.
Coakley’s assertion that that Catholic physicians lose their First Amendment protected religious rights once they start working turns the Constitution on its ear and is a dangerous position for any government official to espouse, let alone a State’s Attorney General. As stated earlier, the First Amendment generally protects religious freedom from government persecution and certainly does not justify prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom as Coakley asserted in her interview.
Coakley’s hostility to Catholic rights of conscience is precisely the type of government intrusion upon religion that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from. As such, one could reasonably say that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect the citizenry from the likes of Martha Coakley since she favors using naked federal power to stamp out the exercise of religious freedom in the health care arena.
Coakley’s comment also shows she is a liberal statist who neither understands nor respects the Constitution and its First Amendment protections of religious freedom. Similarly, Coakley’s views evidence a profound disrespect for Catholic teachings and Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings. In short, Coakley’s views on religious freedom and health care are dead wrong and Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to show her how wrong she is this Tuesday on Election Day.
Of course, the impact of Tuesday’s special U.S. Senate election extends way beyond the borders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is the proverbial canary in the mine. We shall soon see whether Obama “change” inspired liberal policies are facing toxic headwinds that spell doom for other liberal Democrats who share Coakley’s views.
The Massachusetts Senate election is a clear weathervane of the country’s changing political landscape. It is a game changer in every sense of the word. If Coakley manages a narrow win, moderate House and Senate democrats will realize that voting lockstep with the ultraliberal Democratic leadership is a perilous and potentially career ending strategy. The currently numerically significant Democratic majority in both houses will for all practical purposes shrink to a slim practical majority. As a result, Liberal legislative initiatives like cap and trade, additional economic stimulus plans and other liberal initiatives will now have to tread a difficult uphill road to passage.
On the other hand, a Brown victory in this bluest of blue states will spell doom for the liberal Democratic agenda. It will prompt a slew of Democrats to not run for reelection and the pending health reform effort may very well be stopped dead in its tracks.
Developments within the Bay state and on the national political scene have provided a helpful tailwind to Scott Brown’s senate campaign. The increasing unpopularity of the health reform initiative and a poorly conducted campaign by Martha Coakley have leveled the playing field in a state where talented Republican politicians have often not fared very well. Perhaps Martha Coakley’s politically perilous assertion that devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, aka the “Catholic Slap” will be enough to carry Scott Brown to victory this Tuesday. If that does occur, there will be no mistaking that politically the times they are a’ changing most certainly in Massachusetts and, possibly, for the nation as well.
By Mark Henry
To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. What possessed Coakley to make this slap in the face of the 39% of citizens of Massachusetts who are Catholics will be probed in detail in next weeks post mortem of this election.
Coakley’s responses in this radio interview gives Catholic voters a candid glimpse at her judicial, social and political worldview. What you see in Coakley’s minds eye is a shocking degree of hostility towards the First Amendment freedom of religion rights of Catholics. Additionally, her strong support for the very unpopular Democratic health reform initiative, with it’s federal abortion funding, has alienated many voters, Catholic and non-Catholic as well.
As the current Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley should know better that to use the oft misused separation of Church and State metaphor to justify denying religious freedom rights of Catholics. Coakley knows full well that the separation of Church and State principle is not found anywhere in the First Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. To the contrary, the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of all religious, including Catholics.
Coakley’s assertion that that Catholic physicians lose their First Amendment protected religious rights once they start working turns the Constitution on its ear and is a dangerous position for any government official to espouse, let alone a State’s Attorney General. As stated earlier, the First Amendment generally protects religious freedom from government persecution and certainly does not justify prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom as Coakley asserted in her interview.
Coakley’s hostility to Catholic rights of conscience is precisely the type of government intrusion upon religion that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from. As such, one could reasonably say that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect the citizenry from the likes of Martha Coakley since she favors using naked federal power to stamp out the exercise of religious freedom in the health care arena.
Coakley’s comment also shows she is a liberal statist who neither understands nor respects the Constitution and its First Amendment protections of religious freedom. Similarly, Coakley’s views evidence a profound disrespect for Catholic teachings and Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings. In short, Coakley’s views on religious freedom and health care are dead wrong and Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to show her how wrong she is this Tuesday on Election Day.
Of course, the impact of Tuesday’s special U.S. Senate election extends way beyond the borders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is the proverbial canary in the mine. We shall soon see whether Obama “change” inspired liberal policies are facing toxic headwinds that spell doom for other liberal Democrats who share Coakley’s views.
The Massachusetts Senate election is a clear weathervane of the country’s changing political landscape. It is a game changer in every sense of the word. If Coakley manages a narrow win, moderate House and Senate democrats will realize that voting lockstep with the ultraliberal Democratic leadership is a perilous and potentially career ending strategy. The currently numerically significant Democratic majority in both houses will for all practical purposes shrink to a slim practical majority. As a result, Liberal legislative initiatives like cap and trade, additional economic stimulus plans and other liberal initiatives will now have to tread a difficult uphill road to passage.
On the other hand, a Brown victory in this bluest of blue states will spell doom for the liberal Democratic agenda. It will prompt a slew of Democrats to not run for reelection and the pending health reform effort may very well be stopped dead in its tracks.
Developments within the Bay state and on the national political scene have provided a helpful tailwind to Scott Brown’s senate campaign. The increasing unpopularity of the health reform initiative and a poorly conducted campaign by Martha Coakley have leveled the playing field in a state where talented Republican politicians have often not fared very well. Perhaps Martha Coakley’s politically perilous assertion that devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, aka the “Catholic Slap” will be enough to carry Scott Brown to victory this Tuesday. If that does occur, there will be no mistaking that politically the times they are a’ changing most certainly in Massachusetts and, possibly, for the nation as well.
By Mark Henry
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Machiavelli; The Patron Saint of Health Reform Democrats
As we enter the final days of the epic effort to change America’s health care industry, we are witnessing first hand a low point in American politics. On the campaign trail President Obama promised a new era of transparency. We were told that change was needed and health care reform would occur in open door legislative sessions that the whole world would see, via C-Span no less.
What the Democrats promised us and what they have given us are worlds apart. Instead of a transparent health reform legislative process, the Democrats have pushed this legislation through in a secretive closed door manner which is unprecedented in America’s history. They have completely by passed the time honored legislative committee reconciliation process, opting instead for back room closed door deal making where political payoffs were extracted as the price for getting previously principled Democratic legislators to support this unpopular legislation. They even resorted to scheduling key health reform legislative votes on Christmas Eve to reduce scrutiny by we, the people. In so doing, they have shown us the true identity of the Grinch who stole Christmas.
In their “do anything to pass a law” strategy, they have even jettisoned planks near and dear to key democratic constituents like the elderly and unions. To top it off, they have brazenly marched forward with this health reform law undeterred by the fact that a large majority of Americans are very opposed to this type of health reform legislation.
The Democrats determined efforts to push through this health care takeover are hardly profiles in courage. Far from it. Instead, what we are seeing is a political modus operandi which is quite Machiavellian, smacking of Chicago-style politics. The governing strategy of the Democratic leadership has revealed a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve the end goal of a federal takeover of health care.
The first desperate means the Democrats employed was to put the financial burden of health care reform squarely on the backs of seniors. To finance this very expensive takeover of health care, the Democrats proposed draconian cuts to Medicare. While it remains to be seen how deep the Medicare cuts will be, it is close to a foregone conclusion that seniors will bear the brunt of the pain of health care reform. The fact that Democrats would so quickly “throw Momma off the train” to pay for health care reform and alienate the reliably democratic senior voting block speaks volumes about their insatiable appetite to expand their power over the health care industry which represents 16% of the nations GNP. First the banks, then the auto industry and now health care.
While seniors proved to be the low man on the totem pole that the Democrats would climb to take over health care, next in the pecking order to fall was the government insurance option. Giving up the government insurance option has proven to be a bitter pill for many Democrats as the government option is a short hop, skip and a jump away from the Democratic statists end goal of a single payer health insurance system.
However, Democrats have realized that half a loaf is better than none at all and it looks like they will tearfully sacrifice the government insurance option in exchange for a federal law requirement that all Americans buy insurance from the very same insurance industry that Democrats so publically demonized in late 2010. The fact that the IRS will be in charge of enforcing the federal mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance may make this concession easier for many Democrats to swallow.
The next voting block the Democrats seem to be willing to jettison to reach health care mecca are the labor unions. The Democrats proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance plans shows that they are willing to anger the loyally democratic union vote. However, getting past this rung on the political constituency totem pole is proving to be a slippery exercise and the union bosses are pushing back. More likely than not, Democratic leaders will revert to recent habit and retreat to back rooms and work out a compromise that reduces the negative impact of the Cadillac tax on unions.
Finally, at the top of the totem pole we have the most loyal of all Democratic voting blocks; the supporters of a women’s decision to kill her unborn child. The House and Senate versions of the health care legislation are far apart on this issue with the House’s Stupak amendment containing more substantial restrictions on federal funding of abortion than the Senate version does.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats leaders will have the temerity to arm twist their Democratic and largely pro-abortion members into voting for health legislation which contains meaningful restrictions on federal funding of abortions. If they do this, it will reveal a willingness to sacrifice a core value which is so fundamental to the modern Democratic Party - the power to abort an unborn child – that voting for such abortion restrictions must infuriate many of the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate. Conversely, having such Stupak type abortion restrictions would be an encouraging sign to the Catholic community even though there are other aspects of the health legislation that are troubling.
If the Democrats ultimately do pass health reform legislation containing meaningful, albeit incomplete, abortion funding restrictions it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one and only sacrosanct core belief of current Democrat leaders is that power trumps ideology. Liberal Democratic allegiances to seniors, unions, abortion supporters and to the desire for a government insurance option will have sacrificed to the overriding objective of increasing federal power over the health insurance industry.
If by crafty use of the carrot and stick, Democrat leaders are really able to cajole their members to finally pass health care legislation containing significant abortion funding restrictions and get it to the President’s desk for signature, it will be a momentous occasion for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it will be the first time in recent history that major landmark legislation will have been passed against the wishes of a large majority of American voters. Additionally, the “pass a law at whatever cost” process this legislation took, bereft of transparency and replete with backroom vote buying, nefarious deal making and other legislative shenanigans, represents a new low in the annals of American lawmaking. It’s enough to make Machiavelli sit up, take notice and snicker in admiration.
However, more significant than either the unpopularity of this law or the reprehensible legislative journey it has taken is the troubling path America will have embarked on towards a larger more intrusive nanny-style federal government. The only question is whether by the time the mid-term elections come around in late 2010 it will be too late for America to reverse course and once again head in the direction that made America great. The leaders on the left side of the aisle are doubling up and betting the House (and maybe the Senate too!) that it will be too late for a course correction and that America will be irreparably slouching towards socialism.
By Mark Henry
What the Democrats promised us and what they have given us are worlds apart. Instead of a transparent health reform legislative process, the Democrats have pushed this legislation through in a secretive closed door manner which is unprecedented in America’s history. They have completely by passed the time honored legislative committee reconciliation process, opting instead for back room closed door deal making where political payoffs were extracted as the price for getting previously principled Democratic legislators to support this unpopular legislation. They even resorted to scheduling key health reform legislative votes on Christmas Eve to reduce scrutiny by we, the people. In so doing, they have shown us the true identity of the Grinch who stole Christmas.
In their “do anything to pass a law” strategy, they have even jettisoned planks near and dear to key democratic constituents like the elderly and unions. To top it off, they have brazenly marched forward with this health reform law undeterred by the fact that a large majority of Americans are very opposed to this type of health reform legislation.
The Democrats determined efforts to push through this health care takeover are hardly profiles in courage. Far from it. Instead, what we are seeing is a political modus operandi which is quite Machiavellian, smacking of Chicago-style politics. The governing strategy of the Democratic leadership has revealed a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve the end goal of a federal takeover of health care.
The first desperate means the Democrats employed was to put the financial burden of health care reform squarely on the backs of seniors. To finance this very expensive takeover of health care, the Democrats proposed draconian cuts to Medicare. While it remains to be seen how deep the Medicare cuts will be, it is close to a foregone conclusion that seniors will bear the brunt of the pain of health care reform. The fact that Democrats would so quickly “throw Momma off the train” to pay for health care reform and alienate the reliably democratic senior voting block speaks volumes about their insatiable appetite to expand their power over the health care industry which represents 16% of the nations GNP. First the banks, then the auto industry and now health care.
While seniors proved to be the low man on the totem pole that the Democrats would climb to take over health care, next in the pecking order to fall was the government insurance option. Giving up the government insurance option has proven to be a bitter pill for many Democrats as the government option is a short hop, skip and a jump away from the Democratic statists end goal of a single payer health insurance system.
However, Democrats have realized that half a loaf is better than none at all and it looks like they will tearfully sacrifice the government insurance option in exchange for a federal law requirement that all Americans buy insurance from the very same insurance industry that Democrats so publically demonized in late 2010. The fact that the IRS will be in charge of enforcing the federal mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance may make this concession easier for many Democrats to swallow.
The next voting block the Democrats seem to be willing to jettison to reach health care mecca are the labor unions. The Democrats proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance plans shows that they are willing to anger the loyally democratic union vote. However, getting past this rung on the political constituency totem pole is proving to be a slippery exercise and the union bosses are pushing back. More likely than not, Democratic leaders will revert to recent habit and retreat to back rooms and work out a compromise that reduces the negative impact of the Cadillac tax on unions.
Finally, at the top of the totem pole we have the most loyal of all Democratic voting blocks; the supporters of a women’s decision to kill her unborn child. The House and Senate versions of the health care legislation are far apart on this issue with the House’s Stupak amendment containing more substantial restrictions on federal funding of abortion than the Senate version does.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats leaders will have the temerity to arm twist their Democratic and largely pro-abortion members into voting for health legislation which contains meaningful restrictions on federal funding of abortions. If they do this, it will reveal a willingness to sacrifice a core value which is so fundamental to the modern Democratic Party - the power to abort an unborn child – that voting for such abortion restrictions must infuriate many of the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate. Conversely, having such Stupak type abortion restrictions would be an encouraging sign to the Catholic community even though there are other aspects of the health legislation that are troubling.
If the Democrats ultimately do pass health reform legislation containing meaningful, albeit incomplete, abortion funding restrictions it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one and only sacrosanct core belief of current Democrat leaders is that power trumps ideology. Liberal Democratic allegiances to seniors, unions, abortion supporters and to the desire for a government insurance option will have sacrificed to the overriding objective of increasing federal power over the health insurance industry.
If by crafty use of the carrot and stick, Democrat leaders are really able to cajole their members to finally pass health care legislation containing significant abortion funding restrictions and get it to the President’s desk for signature, it will be a momentous occasion for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it will be the first time in recent history that major landmark legislation will have been passed against the wishes of a large majority of American voters. Additionally, the “pass a law at whatever cost” process this legislation took, bereft of transparency and replete with backroom vote buying, nefarious deal making and other legislative shenanigans, represents a new low in the annals of American lawmaking. It’s enough to make Machiavelli sit up, take notice and snicker in admiration.
However, more significant than either the unpopularity of this law or the reprehensible legislative journey it has taken is the troubling path America will have embarked on towards a larger more intrusive nanny-style federal government. The only question is whether by the time the mid-term elections come around in late 2010 it will be too late for America to reverse course and once again head in the direction that made America great. The leaders on the left side of the aisle are doubling up and betting the House (and maybe the Senate too!) that it will be too late for a course correction and that America will be irreparably slouching towards socialism.
By Mark Henry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)