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.

Searching for the political Cool Hand Luke

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, Luke Jackson serves time in a Florida prison work camp. From the moment he is introduced to the camp, Luke establishes himself as a fiercely independent spirit, challenging the authority of  the prison guards and refusing to accept the heirarchy of power among the prisoners established prior to his arrival.  One of the movies most memorable moments occurs when Luke (Paul Newman) challenges Dragline (George Kennedy), the self appointed leader among the band of prisoners,  to a prison yard fight.

Dragline uses his size and strength to pummel Luke. However, each time Dragline knocks Luke to the ground, he rises back up to take the next round of punches. At first, the other prioners cheer the fight on, but after a while they begin to see the extent of the beating and encourage Luke to either stay down or start bleeding so that the guards will stop the fight.  Luke refuses, rises to his feet and attempts a weak swing at Dragline who picks Luke up and throws him over his shoulder like a sack of potatos. When Dragline puts Luke down, he takes another swing at Dragline’s face. Dragline looks at Luke tells him “you’re beat” and to “stay down,” but Luke rises back up, as Dragline walks away.

Later that night, Luke manages to win most of the money in camp by bluffing his way through a hand in poker. Dragline looks at Luke and makes the comparison of the way Luke continued to fight him with “nothing” to the way he won a big hand in poker with “nothing.” This prompts Luke to issue one of the most famous lines in movie history, “…sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” As the movie progresses, we see Luke defy the authority of the prison guards and that of Captain, seeking to escape from both the literal and metaphorical chains they attach to him, refusing to allow the authority of the prison camp establishment intimidate him.

When I think of Cool Hand Luke, I’m reminded of what the Republican Party currently needs. In the current political clime, Barack Obama plays the role of Captain. Indeed, you can almost hear the words, “what we have here is failure to communicate,” coming out of Obama’s mouth. The prison guards represent Obama’s lackeys in the Democratic Party–Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc. Dragline represents the current “leaders” in the Republican Party–John McCain, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham. The other prisoners represent the Republican Party and Luke represents the figure the Republican Party lacks.

Yes, the Republican Party needs their own Luke, someone willing to challenge the authority of the political establishment, someone willing to challenge the Captain and his guards, someone willing to take the punches from those in the Republican Party who will tell him or her, “we’re beat, stay down.”  The Republican Party needs politicians,not with policy, but with swagger. The Republicans need someone to energize their party with their dissidence.

Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) understands this, but lacks the eloquence to properly express this philosophy.  Asking a political party to take lessons from a Paul Newman movie is far less controversial than asking a political party to take lessons from the Taliban. I might not agree with everything Sessions says, but I admire his bravado nonetheless. Earlier in the week, Sessions called out Barack Obama, saying that Obama wants to “inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it.”  After that remark, members of Sessions own party played the role of Dragline, distancing themselves from Sessions comments, submitting to the authority of the Democratic leadership.

Instead of standing up beside Sessions, lambasting Obama for his contempt of the private sector, accepting the punishment the White House would surely throw their way, the Republican leadership tucked their tails between their legs and said they did not agree with Sessions. They chose to cut and run, instead of staying and fighting.

We have seen this same cowardice since 2000. Every Republican politician has marched in line with the leadership at top. Every now and then, a few Republican politicians will have a moment of clarity and take a stand like Sessions; however, none of them go far enough.

For example, when Sessions made his accusations about Obama’s attempt to “kill” capitalism, he could have launched into a speech against socialism and took a chance to criticize many in his own party. 

The Republicans taxed and spent the past 8 year like there was no tomorrow and tried to force the government in arenas where the government has no business (gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.). Yes, the few remaining Republicans in Congress are just like their Democrat counterparts. In the words of Bon Jovi, “it’s all the same/only the names have changed.” 

As much as I hate the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is actually more puzzling to me. Why is that they continue to push issues that many, if not most, Americans see as products of bigotry and misogyny. You don’t win elections by telling people “we think this group of people should have these rights, but not these.” They’re free to believe that, but don’t try to legislate it.

The best way for Republicans to win elections is to focus on the economy. “I’ll cut your taxes. I’ll decrease regulation of your business. I’ll let you make as much money as you want and spend that money the way that you want. Other than that, do what you want, just remember your rights end at your nose.” 

Instead, Republicans vote with Democrats on raising taxes, increasing government spending, using the government as a vehicle to fix mistakes made by the private sector. Let us not forget, a Republican president started the Federal bail out program. Three Republican Senators voted in favor of the Federal stimulus program. No wonder the Republican Party is at rock bottom, right now, it has no backbone to support it. Hopefully, before too long, the Republican Party will find it’s Cool Hand Luke and throw a wrench in the Democrats plan to turn the United States into a European socialist state.