The Truth of Health Care Reform Revealed

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their preliminary cost estimates for the pending health reform legislation. Democrats lauded the reports findings, noting that the figures–cost of $950 billion and reduce the deficit by $150 billion over ten years–hit the marks President Barack Obama laid out when the health care debate began over a year ago. While these numbers may fall within the parameters dictated by President Obama–the New York Times does an excellent job of explaining how it was impossible for them not to–this battle has little to do with deficits or health care reform. In the end, it comes down to one word–”power.”

Regardless, it appears Democrats have the votes they need and passage is inevitable. Over the past couple of days, I’ve watched the reactions of several different factions involved in the debate.

As expected, members of the “Tea Party Movement” have expressed outrage at the bill and out of frustration have started directing their anger at the politicians involved with ramming the bill through. NBC reporter, Luke Russert, tweeted earlier that Tea Party activists were hurling racial slurs at  Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), one of the more visible faces in the health care debate, and other Democratic politicians. It’s unfortunate that some people feel the need to resort to ignorance to voice their opposition. Clyburn and other Democratic politicians are making a huge mistake in supporting the current bill, but it has nothing to do with the politicians’ race, hurling racial slurs at politicians will not prevent the bill from passing, nor will it help reduce the size of the Federal government.

Another group I’ve followed reaction from is the intellectual elitist/Hollywood crowd. This group, largely made up of people who have made a lot of money from doing virtually nothing–either through trust funds, inheritance or bad art–feels guilty for having so much and doing so little. This creates a void in their life and they spend their free time–something else they have plenty of–searching for ways to give their life meaning, supporting health care reform gives their lives’ this meaning. After all, they believe everyone will now have free health care and that a perfect utopia cannot be far behind. This group is ecstatic. While I strongly disagree with this segment of society, they’re so far out of touch with mainstream American society that I cannot hold this instance of bad judgment against them. They lack the proper knowledge to fully understand the practical implications this bill will have on American society.

Without a doubt, the most smug group are the Democratic politicians. Power drives politicians. This goes for Republicans as much as Democrats, but the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and are the party responsible for this health care bill. This bill was born out a hunger for power, but sold to the American people as a humanitarian necessity. Simply put, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama could care less how much the average American is paying for insurance premiums, nor do they have any real interest in the number of Americans currently without health insurance. These politicians care only about power and health care reform provided the perfect opportunity to control over a large portion of the American economy currently run by the private sector. This group is walking around D.C. right now, chest stuck out, nose stuck up, fake smiles chiseled on their faces, overjoyed that their dream is nearing reality, soon they will have power our Federal government has never seen.

Then there’s me. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I don’t believe the Federal government has any role to play in health care reform, unless it’s removing itself from the equation altogether. While I do believe reform is needed, I don’t believe that the Federal government is the proper to agent to usher in that reform.

But what about the poor people without health insurance? Our nation is filled with the most generous people on the face of the planet. I have no doubt that, if provided with sufficient tax credits, American people would gladly increase their charitable donations to churches and other altruistic organizations. People run charities a lot better than the Federal government.

When I look at this health care bill, I am saddened by the unabashed bigotry of some of the bill’s detractors. I’m offended by the bravado of the elitists on the East and West Coasts of this nation, who look to the government to solve their personal issues, at the cost of millions of average middle-Americans. I’m disgusted by the egos of the Democratic politicians, so hungry for power, that they’re willing to totally destroy our constitutional Republican form of government, which has worked so well since the founding of our nation. Most importantly, I remain resolute that this socialism starter course will not take hold in the bowels of the Americans people, but rather be discharged as the filthy excrement it is. The first big BM? November 2010.

The Faulty Logic of Republicans on Education

Recently, I penned a piece exposing the Democrat’s faulty logic in continuing to press forward with health care reform in the face of widespread opposition. In that piece, I made it clear that Democratic politicians are not alone in their use of faulty logic to promote a personal agenda. Indeed, Republicans are just as guilty of the charge. Consider the faulty logic displayed by the Bush administration in the build-up for the invasion of Iraq. Even many “third party” and independent candidates build their political platform on a foundation of faulty logic. Perhaps that’s why so many rational people find the world of politics so disgusting; it’s a world void of logic.

It seems that some elected officials make the mistake of assuming that we live in a democracy, when in actuality the United State is a constitutional republic. Other politicians profess to understand the distinction, yet continue to govern as though in a simple democracy.  On Friday, Republican members of the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social studies and history curriculum that would, among other things, refer to the United States government as a “constitutional republic” instead of a “democracy”. Ironically, they relied solely on a democratic principle–the simple majority–to ram through the curriculum’s most controversial elements.

At the heart of the “Texas Textbook War,” is the attempt on the behalf of cultural conservatives to inject their beliefs into the textbooks. This includes their belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values,” studies of the role of conservative political action committees during the 20th Century, and an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s. While there is definitely a time and place to debate these ideas in the classroom, they would be taught as fact if the current curriculum survives a final vote in May.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to radically alter the way history and social studies are taught in Texas’ classrooms has generated intense opposition from Democrats and many Republicans. Earlier this month, two of the board’s most outspoken cultural conservatives, most notably Dr. Don McLeroy, lost Republican primary elections to opponents who oppose this curriculum. McLaren remains defiant in the face of defeat, and vowed to push through the curriculum before relinquishing his seat, a maneuver that would make Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama smile.

The biggest difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is the allocation of protections of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution serves as the primary guarantor of the rights of the minority, but Republicans on the SBOE seem to reject that notion as well. On Thursday, they blocked a measure introduced by a Democrat that would have taught the importance of “separation of church and state” as contained in the First Amendment.  While Republicans claim to support the idea that we live in a constitutional republic, their actions indicate they favor a simple democracy when the results further their agenda.

Students should be taught the difference between a “democracy” and a “constitutional republic.” The nuances between the two forms of government seem to baffle even the most astute politicians. Elected officials have the responsibility to ensure balance exists between competing ideas in the classroom, but must understand that one extremist stance does not balance out another extremist stance. Perhaps educators can use the examples of Democrats on health care reform and Republicans on textbook adoptions as examples of the dangers of simple democracy and to teach the protections provided by a constitutional republic.   Until then, we the people must remain resolute in combating faulty logic wherever it may occur in the realm of politics. Our freedom and liberty, not to mention our children’s future, depend on it.

Texas GOP Gubernatorial Debate

The candidates involved in the Republican primary for the Texas governor’s race met last night for their second debate. Nationally, this race has garnered attention for the showdown between incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Locally, the libertarian-minded Debra Medina has captured headlines for her ability to campaign with the two behemoths with a fraction of their budget and media exposure. As an independent voter, I’m still not convinced that I will vote in the Republican primary, but I decided to watch the debate nonetheless.

Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.

Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident.  Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.

Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately.  The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.

Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.

I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.

All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.

Top 5 Podcasts

Since getting my first iPod as a gift some four years ago, I’ve downloaded countless gigs of all forms of media. One of my favorite things to download is podcasts. Over the last few years, I’ve tried out hundreds of different podcasts, but have now narrowed it down to 15 or 20 that I listen to on a regular basis. I thought I would share with you my top 5 podcasts:

1.) Slate Culture Gabfest – This is a must listen if you want to stay current on all things related to culture. The shows regular panel consists of Dana Stevens, Julia Turner and Stephen Metcalf, though they are frequently joined by other members of the Slate.Com staff. The content leans towards the “high brow” and much of it involves material published in Northeast publications (i.e. New York Times, The New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, etc.), but it provides an inside look at what intellectual elitists all over the nation are talking about.  The most recent episode included a review of the controversial new Lee Daniels’ movie Precious, a review of the Ian McEwan novel Black Dogs to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and Jim Windolf’s recent Vanity Fair article on “cuteness.”

2.)  Slate Political Gabfest – Functions in pretty much the same fashion as the Culture Gabfest–three person panel discusses three issues–only involving politics instead of cultural issues. The normal panel consists of John Dickerson, Emily Bazelon and Slate managing editor, David Plotz. Be warned, the panel leans Left–far Left, but it’s entertaining and informative all the same.

3.) Anything You Ever Wanted to Know – This show is produced by KERA, Dallas’ local public radio station. The show airs each Friday afternoon, but I always listen to it via podcast. The show provides an open forum for listeners to submit questions, either on the phone or through e-mail, to be answered by other members of the listening audience and is moderated by Jeff Whittington. Over the past three years, I’ve learned some fascinating things from the show.

4.) The Writer’s Almanac Podcast – Hosted by Garrison Keillor, the show serves as a “this day in literary history” for lovers of words.  Normally, Keillor lists off several key events for each day and then will focus heavily on one birthday or event before reading a selected “poem of the day.” More than anything else, the show has introduced me to some great new poetry.

5.) NPR Playback – While the other podcasts I listed are released on a weekly or daily basies, the NPR Playback podcast is released on a monthly basis and features audio clips from the archives from 20 years prior. For example, the November podcast features audio from NPR segments from November 1984. I love being transported back to the 80′s and this podcast does just that.

Texas Voter ID Bill

The Texas state Senate passed a voter ID bill on Wednesday.  It’s legislation with good intentions, but there’s no way it will make it past Obama’s justic department. Opponents of the bill feel that it would discourage many members of minority voting blocks who might not have access to photo ID’s. I say, call their bluff.

Instead of requiring a voter to show a photo ID in addition to their voter registration card, make Texas voter registration cards photo ID’s. In other words, attach a photo fhe voter to the voter registration card.

How would the goons with La Raza and ACORN attack that measure?