I have written of political hypocrisy in the past. But it seems our elected leaders keep providing us with more examples. Here are a few of the most recent.
In Washington, a bi-partisan group of Senators proposed creating a commission tasked with crafting a deficit reduction plan. Yet, nine Republican legislators who co-authored this legislation ended up voting against it. It is hard to understand how someone could sponsor a bill – but then vote against it.
In Saint Paul, in bi-partisan fashion legislators passed a law to restructure the General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) program designed to cover the indigent. The initial vote was an overwhelming 125 to 9. Yet, after a gubernatorial veto, the override vote was 86 to 47 (three votes shy of the required two-thirds needed for an override). How could so many legislators switch their vote on this bill?
On ethics, hypocrisy is also evident. A few years ago, Democrats railed against the ethical transgressions of several Republican congressmen and derided what they termed to be a “culture of corruption” in Washington. On several occasions they called for unethical Republican legislators to step down from leadership positions. Now, as they are in control of Congress, Democrats are singing a different tune. Democrat Charlie Rangel of New York, the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, has been found to have violated ethics rules by taking trips funded by private corporations. It also appears that he did not properly disclose all of his sources of income – as required by ethics rules- and that he failed to pay taxes on $125,000 of income from rental property. At the least, Rangel should be asked to step away from his chairmanship until these issues are resolved. But Democratic leaders are defending instead of denouncing Rangel. When it comes to ethics both parties express outrage only when the transgressor is from the other party. But when they have a miscreant in their own midst they seem to take the attitude that “he may be a crook – but at least he’s our crook.”
There is good news and bad in the special election to fill the state senate seat of retiring legislator, Dick Day. The good is that we have three candidates who present very different styles and (with some exceptions) competing views on the pertinent issues of the day.
For example, on the budget, the Republican candidate, Mike Parry, hews pretty close to Republican orthodoxy - and will clearly be a feisty advocate for spending cuts (fifteen percent across the board) though he wavers when asked whether that applies to education or any other specific budget category. The Democrat, Jason Engbrecht, refuses to identify any area of current government spending he feels we can do without - despite a huge whole in the state's budget - and advocates "revenue" increases as part of the budget solution. The Independent, Roy Srp, stresses his record as Mayor in keeping the city's budget in the black (without property tax increases) despite state imposed cuts in Local Government Aid - and pledges to bring the same approach to state budgeting. This is just a sample of what we are learning as these three candidates share their views with area voters. Fortunately, because of seven debate forums (all of which have been covered by the local media), we are being given ample opportunity to compare and contrast the candidates.
Here is the bad news. Area voters are also being inundated with robo-calls and mass mailings (some of them negative) all financed with outside money. The two major parties (Republican and Democrat) and their associated interest groups are determined to win this election to advance their own agendas (which in many respects do not align at all with the concerns and needs of area residents). And they are obviously willing to spend whatever it takes to "buy" their candidate a victory. Do your best to ignore this outside influence - and instead make your decision next Tuesday based on what you know about each of these candidates. Here in Waseca, we already know a lot about two of the three contenders, Mayor Srp and former councilman Parry. We have learned more about them and Mr. Engbrecht through the frequent debates. So, vote what you know – not what these outside groups want you to believe.
Congress does not pass “landmark” legislation very often – and it remains to be seen as to whether the health care reform bill (now moving to a conference committee and ultimate passage) will meet that standard.
However, I can say that when compared against other celebrated pieces of landmark legislation, it appears to fall short. The main reason is the lack of bipartisan support.
The Civil Rights Act and the Medicare program are two landmark laws that immediately come to mind. Both programs were enacted in the mid-1960s and both had bi-partisan backing. Why does support from both major parties matter? The answer: Because bipartisan support in Congress better reflects “common ground” within the American electorate. In addition, on an issue as important as health reform, good ideas are not the sole domain of either party. Without broad-based support from the voters – support that is clearly lacking for this health bill according to recent opinion polls – major reform is subject to reversal due to voter backlash. In short, major changes in social policy are typically not sustainable when enacted on a party line vote.
Second, there is the question of cost control. This health reform bill is heavy on provisions that will expand access to health care – a noble goal (but an expensive one). However, it is entirely too weak on controlling costs within the health care system. Most voters want to see government health care costs brought down before programs like Medicare and Medicaid bust the budget. This bill does little to address that concern (despite the much debated “cuts” in Medicare). Most voters also want to see reform that stops the annual double digit increase in private sector health insurance plans. Sadly, this bill does nothing to stop those increases from occurring – and, in fact, worsens the inflationary factor for those trying to purchase insurance on the open market.
Finally, this bill was processed in the worst possible manner. Forcing a vote under the pressure of a Christmas deadline meant that an inordinate number of deals had to be cut to garner the needed votes. For example, we saw Senators literally being bought off with promises of federal dollars for Medicaid to their states well in excess of the payments that would be made to other states. This kind of horse-trading is patently wrong, unfair and inequitable. Worse, it adds greatly to the future cost of this health reform bill (and will likely lead to many other states demanding the same sweet – and expensive - deal). In all, it was an ugly scene as these last minute deals were being cut. I do not think it bodes well for the Democrats who used these tactics to pass a bill that is opposed by a majority of the American electorate. That is my two cents.
I was amused by Republican Governor Pawlenty’s recent suggestion that we amend the state constitution to prohibit any expenditure greater than the revenue collected in the previous year.
Like so many of his ideas, it sounds on the surface to be a reasonable idea – hold the line of spending. But on closer examination, you have to wonder how serious the Governor is about enacting this proposal – since it requires a vote of the legislature (now controlled by the Democrats) and then a vote of the electorate in the coming general election. Even if both of those obstacles are overcome, this policy would not take effect until after Pawlenty leaves office. Accordingly, I have a few questions for the Governor.
- If this is such a great idea, why didn’t you think of it eight years ago when you first took office?
- If this proposal is – as you stated – “consistent with your philosophy and results”- why is the projected budget deficit twice as large as the one you started with eight years ago?
- In your eight years in office, have you ever presented the legislature with a budget that held to the previous year’s tax revenue?
- Are you prepared to submit such a budget to the legislature this coming January?
- During your eight year tenure, when the legislature sent you spending measures that exceeded the previous year’s revenue, why didn’t you use your veto pen to cut those bills down to size?
- When you had a chance to “unallot” earlier this year, why did you shift roughly $2 billion in spending into the next budget year making it the next Governor’s problem?
Shouldn’t you instead have honestly cut spending by $2 billion?
- Because our tax revenues are closely tied to the economy, couldn’t this proposed policy actually lead to excessive revenue and higher spending in times of economic growth (as they say, beware of unintended consequences)?
- And, finally, this gimmicky idea – designed to make you “look” like a fiscal conservative – wouldn’t have anything to do with your presidential ambitions, would it?
Until 1973, senior citizens on Social Security received no automatic cost of living (COLA) increase. Prior to the creation of a COLA, Congress would decide whether (or not) to increase Social Security payments. Because Congress tended to get overly generous with increases (especially during election years), double-digit percentage increases were not uncommon. So, in some respects, offering an annual COLA – pegged to the inflation rate – was deemed to be better, fairer and cheaper.
Last year, due to the recession, the cost of living went down by 4 percent. Accordingly, seniors are slated to get no COLA increase this coming year. And, in fairness, they should not get one. Yet, President Obama and members of Congress seem intent on giving retired seniors a pay raise anyway. Congress is currently considering a flat $250 payment to every retiree (rich or poor). That payment will cost the federal government $13 billion (money the government does not have given our huge deficit).
Bear in mind that seniors did get a 5.8 percent increase last year – one of the largest COLAs ever paid. Social Security beneficiaries also received a tax rebate under the stimulus bill passed before President Bush left office. And, they were recipients of extra payments under the stimulus plan passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last February.
Compared to most workers in America, seniors are faring pretty well in this recession. Ten percent of working age Americans are presently unemployed with another roughly ten percent are underemployed. Few, if any, workers received a pay raise last year and prospects for pay raises this year are doubtful. Yet, these workers will be required to foot the $13 billion bill for this payment to retirees – through taxes in the future to repay today’s deficit spending.
This should not be a complicated decision for Congress. First, American workers are getting no pay raise. In fairness, neither should retirees. Second, the budget is already heavily in the red. We should not unnecessarily add to that debt. Third, the COLA was created to protect seniors from inflationary costs and this year the cost of living decreased. As a result, no Social Security increase is warranted.
Still, I predict Congress will heed President Obama’s call for a $250 payment to seniors – with money we do not have – because it is the popular thing to do.
I think I’m on board with what is probably a universally accepted belief in America this week: President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was premature, possibly even undeserved. I’m not on board, however, with those who would tout this as an embarrassment for the president. If anything, it’s an embarrassment for the Nobel committee, because of their puzzling choice, and Obama is essentially a bystander.
An embarrassment is that our previous president had eight full years to earn himself a Peace Prize and couldn’t do it. He wasn’t prematurely awarded such recognition, but he did prematurely declare an end to major combat in Iraq. That was in 2003.
When our current president is considering a troop increase in Afghanistan, 8 years into the war, he’s not a peacemaker. When he gives speeches on the national stage, reaching out to those with whom our relationship has been strained it’s commendable, but it ain’t peace. When he’s got 3 years (maybe 7) to screw things up, it’s not time to dole out the Peace Prize.
At the same time, you can’t blame Obama. He didn’t lobby for this. He was probably more surprised than anyone to have gotten it! His critics will argue that he’s being recognized by a group of wimpy Europeans who have just bought into Obama-mania. Here in America, though, it’s safe to say the honeymoon is over. The Obama aura is pretty much gone, and we’re back to scratching each other’s eyes out. If Europe still has a crush on him, honestly, who cares? It could be worse (see: the past 8 years).
I think our president has the potential to achieve meaningful peace. He just hasn’t done it yet. After all, he’s still the new guy.
In the end, I think Obama’s undeserved win last Friday is less consequential than the Yankees’ undeserved win! I, personally, have spent more time agonizing over the fact that The Dark Knight didn’t receive the Best Picture nomination (and win) that it did deserve, than I care to spend on the Peace Prize our president got and didn’t deserve.
There’s my two cents
Marcus
I suggested the Nobel Peace Prize as a topic thinking that Marcus and I might have differing views. Evidently, not. But let me elaborate anyway.
The following is a listing of some of the previous Peace Prize recipients:
President Theodore Roosevelt for brokering a peace agreement between Japan and Russia.
President Woodrow Wilson for the Versailles Treaty after WWI and for promoting the League of Nations.
General George C. Marshall for efforts to rebuild war torn Europe after WWII (the Marshall Plan).
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for leading the American Civil Rights movement.
Dr. Norman Borlaug (University of Minnesota) for crop research that led to the “green revolution” in developing nations.
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for negotiating a peace treaty with Vietnam.
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for reaching the first treaty between an Arab nation and Israel.
Lech Walesa for organizing and leading a workers union and advancing democratic reforms in communist-controlled Poland. Remember “solidarnosc?”
President Mikhail Gorbachev for instituting “glasnost” and “perestroika” – democratic reforms in the former Soviet Union.
Nelson Mandela for leading reconciliation after years of apartheid in South Africa.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for beginning the process toward peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.
President Barrack Obama. For what?
To borrow a phrase from the children’s program Sesame Street, “One of these names doesn’t belong with the others.”
Money: It now takes at least a million dollars to wage a campaign for Congress (several millions to run for the Senate). Those who do run have to spend more time raising money than they spend meeting with voters. Most people – though highly qualified and perhaps better qualified – decide the money chase just isn’t worth it.
Interest Groups: Both parties are dominated by interest groups that are outside the mainstream. These groups are not looking for common ground or common sense. Yet, candidates must cater to these groups because they are often the key to getting a party’s endorsement (and, not incidentally, campaign money).
Seniority: In Congress (especially the House) seniority rules. That means that committee chairs (who wield inordinate power) are often legislators who came to Washington three, four or five decades ago. They are still trying to enact yesterday’s agenda. And, they use (sometimes abuse) their power to get what they want.
Gerrymandering: Most sates draw legislative districts in order to create safe districts for the political party in power. As a result, few districts in America are any longer truly competitive. That often means that the winner of a party’s primary is almost assuredly going to win the general election. Ultimately, that leads to a Congress with fewer moderates – and more partisanship.
Careerism: Too many politicians have made a career of politics. That means we do not have enough legislators today who have had real experience in the private sector that could help to inform their public policy decisions. It also means that they are constantly in campaign mode because they want to keep their jobs. Instead, what we as a nation need are legislators who will do their jobs.
That is my two cents.
Tim
Five Things Wrong with the Rightwing Opposition to the President
1. The Socialism Charge. This is something John McCain started about a year ago, and it’s sort of taken on a life of its own. Since then those on the far right haven’t ever really stopped calling the president a socialist – somehow forgetting that it was their own Republican President, George Bush, who abandoned free market principles when he bailed out the banks.
2. Tea baggers. These activists have organized anti-tax rallies across the nation - called TEA Parties – meant to echo the famous Boston Tea Party that preceded the American Revolution. T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already, which is a valid point of view. But there’s one problem – for a lot of these people, and for most Americans - President Obama actually reduced their tax burden with a middle class tax cut as part of the economic stimulus bill.
3. The Nazism Charge. Unless someone is committing genocide or invading countries, as a good rule of thumb, you’d better not be comparing anyone to the Nazis. This goes for everyone, not just those on the political right. Nazism is truly evil, and the more you throw the term around in a cavalier fashion, the less it means.
4. Glenn Beck. He is an inconsistent, hypocritical, bitter fool. He’s a professional sensationalist, who has been elevated by unwarranted media coverage. He enjoys the puzzling adoration of a select few. Listen to him all you like, just remember he is a raving lunatic.
5. The Olympics. Right-wingers jumped for joy at the news that the president failed to bring the Olympics to his hometown of Chicago, citing it as evidence of his ineffectiveness. However, if the president had succeeded in getting the games, you would’ve heard cries that Obama is only paying back his moneyed friends back in Chicago. In fact, right wing radio was already singing that song when it seemed like Chicago was a lock. This hypocrisy belies opposition for opposition’s sake. Enough already!!
We elect and expect our leaders to lead. They often mislead.
Case in point: Governor Pawlenty on the budget.
Pawlenty has for eight years promised us a balanced budget with no new taxes. Sound like a false promise? It was.
He entered office with a $3 billion budget deficit and is on track to leave office with a deficit twice as large. Over the years, his so-called solutions have been both inadequate and dishonest.
Now, despite dire warnings from the state’s chief economist, and other experts, that Minnesota faces an impending fiscal crisis likely to reach fifteen percent of our annual budget, Pawlenty asserts the gap is “manageable.” Easy for him to say as he retires and leaves this problem for the next governor.
Pawlenty helped create a fiscal mess. He has shifted costs onto counties, cities and school districts leading to locally-imposed property tax increases (for which he can not be blamed). He recently made much of his intention to cut the budget by exercising “unallotment.” But fully two-thirds of his cuts were not cuts at all – rather payment shifts that delay state expenditures for schools until the next Governor is in office.
Finally, what about Pawlenty’s tobacco tax that wasn’t a tax – but rather a fee. Misleadership? I think so.
Case in point: President Obama on health care.
Obama pledges to lower health costs while offering more benefits and universal coverage. Sound too good to be true? It is.
The President stood before Congress a week ago and spoke for forty minutes about his health plan. There is none. There are three separate reform bills in the House and two in the Senate – each with some of the ideas put forth by the President. But no Obama bill.
The President spent most of his speech talking about reforms that will cost more money. He promised to veto any bill that adds a “dime” to the deficit, but proposed no serious measures to assure that will happen. Other than waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, he spoke sparingly about how to get the cost of health care under control.
The President also seemed to agree with Republicans about malpractice reform. But his idea (allowing some states to implement pilot programs to negotiate malpractice claims) was more fluff than substance. Misleadership? You decide.
In Pawlenty and Obama, we have two leaders with enormous intellect and persuasive skill. However, they are not using their influence to help us understand that – whether it is the state budget or the health care system – there are no fixes without some shared sacrifice. A better leader would find a way to tell us that hard truth.
My wife's birthday was September 11. Since her passing nearly four years ago, this date has become a reminder of personal loss for me and our family. To commemorate her birthday, the kids and I always get together for dinner. While the pain of losing her is an unspoken presence, present too is the evidence of her unending love. As I look around the table, I rejoice in the family she and I created - our three sons, our daughter, and now two grandchildren. She lives on in each of us.
Just as personal loss never really heals, a national loss also leaves deep and painful wounds. The loss we shared on September 11, 2001 lives on in each of us as Americans. This past week as I watched the news stories about the terrorist attack eight years ago which took thousands of innocent lives, the emotions of shock and horror and sadness were reawakened in me. For Americans today, this date has taken on the significance of December 7 for the World War Two generation.
I am proud that we continue to honor the memory of those who perished that day. 1 am proud, as well, that we continue to show gratitude for the bravery of the emergency personnel - police, firefighters and others - whose lives are dedicated to protecting us. And, I am especially proud that we as a people have been united in our support for the many sailors, soldiers and airmen who selflessly answer the country's call to service.
Just last week, I spoke with an area resident - an Army reservist - who was home on leave from his third tour of duty since the start of our War on Terror. I couldn't help but think of the immense personal sacrifice that he - and others like him - are making on our behalf. No amount of compensation now or in the future can adequately replace what he is giving up - in terms of time away from his family and from his private sector profession. His sacrifice is emblematic of all those who wear our country's uniform.
Those who serve us in the military share a deep love of our nation and the ideals for which it stands - so much so that they put their very lives on the line. December 7, 1941 instilled in us an appreciation and an admiration for those who wore the uniform. But, sadly, our Korean and Vietnam veterans did not receive the same recognition. I hope that this time the renewed respect for our military veterans will not waver as time goes by.
That is my two cents.
Tim Penny
It's been a little over 8 years now since those horrifying events, and a little less since American troops first set foot in Afghanistan. We're still there - or more appropriately - they're still there. It's something we as Americans don't think about enough. The media doesn't talk about it enough. The boots on the ground are the only ones who have done enough. In fact, they've done more than enough, and we owe them. Big time.
For years, many Americans have acted like a ribbon car magnet on the back of their car was doing their part in supporting the troops. This is not enough. We missed many opportunities at the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan, and again in 2003 in Iraq. Our previous President and previous Secretary of Defense received plenty of deserved flack (but perhaps too little, too late) for their lack of planning ahead. Bush obviously receives criticism for lots of things, but not for his lack of leadership in the wake of 9/11.
In fact, that's when his approval numbers, not surprisingly, were at their highest. But while the nation rallied behind our President, he should have done more. We should have been asked that we all pitch in. In every way, be it financially or otherwise, regular citizens and soldiers should have been galvanized into a united front to fight and win the war in Afghanistan.
It's the soldiers and their families - almost exclusively - that have made the sacrifices. And even as many of us have missed years of opportunities to show them our appreciation, it's never too late.
My apologies for being preachy on a touchy subject. It's the kind of tough love we Americans need, myself included. Our armed forces do everything their country asks of them and more. Too many have given their last full measure of devotion, and too few of us seem to remember that.
That's my two cents.
Marcus Penny
Our Two Cents is written by Tim and Marcus Penny. Tim Penny is a former U.S. Congressman and Waseca resident. Marcus Penny studies at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
“We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems.” Frightening words? Radical stuff? Hardly.
This one sentence from President Obama’s speech to America’s school children is representative of the entire speech. In short, it was standard stuff. Actually, the main points he made - stay in school, study hard, be respectful, and be responsible – are universal values. As parents, we say the same things to our own kids and we expect our teachers, principals and community leaders to reinforce these messages. So, why not the President?
I do not quite get the controversy surrounding his speech - especially since no school district was required to broadcast it into the classroom. Some schools chose to do so – others decided differently. That is as it should be because our community schools are accountable to the parents and taxpayers within the community.
I did feel that the “study guide” to accompany the President’s speech which was being developed and distributed by the U.S. Department of Education was taking things a bit too far. I am glad that that idea was squelched. Instead, I much prefer that our local teachers decide whether and how they want to build a lesson plan around the message delivered by the President. That seems more in keeping with our tradition of local control.
Let me be clear, I did not vote for Obama and do not support a number of his policies. But he is our President (and we only get one at a time). As such, what he has to say about education is important for all of us to hear – including our children.
That is my two cents.
Tim
Just as the conservative pundits were huffing and puffing earlier this week over the president’s back-to-school speech, so too were Republican members of Congress Wednesday night during the president’s address on health care. One such congressman has received considerable attention for shouting out “YOU LIE” in the middle of the speech (an exclamation that was at best misinformed, and at worst itself a lie).
There seems to be an unyielding opposition to Obama, no matter what he’s saying. I was listening to an ultra-conservative radio host the other day (a guilty pleasure of mine) and she was attacking the president for flaunting his internet savvy! Okay, so I can admit that I mocked the previous president for referring to “The Google,” and his obvious lack of internet savvy, but I can also admit I was going overboard then too.
It’s perfectly all right to have a genuine difference in political philosophy. It’s more than valid to be weary of the expensive and liberal policies that President Obama has already enacted. Politicians like Sen. John McCain, Judd Gregg and Lindsay Graham have demonstrated that it is possible to be critical of the president, but still respectful. The president has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to be civil toward his opponents as well. Others, like Rep. Michele Bachmann, seemed to have missed the memo on how to conduct yourself as, you know, a responsible adult and member of Congress.
If we want to pull ourselves out of this unending funk, quiet the shouting, and stop the tears, we ought to pick apart the president’s health care speech. But instead of going line by line and choosing everything we hate, let’s focus on what we can agree on. We will never have a bill that every American or every politician is going to love, but it’s imperative we find a balance that the most people can be the most happy with. This cannot be achieved by taking as gospel everything you read in anonymous chain e-mails, or using polarizing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann as your primary sources of information.
We need to follow the lead of Senators McCain, Gregg, Graham and President Obama. A little decorum, people!
That is my two cents.
Marcus
Our Two Cents is written by Tim and Marcus Penny. Tim Penny is a former U.S. Congressman and Waseca resident. Marcus Penny studies at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
I have been waiting – in vain - for the Minnesota media to do a more critical expose on how many days Governor Tim Pawlenty has been out of state on something other than official state business. Even if – as the Governor asserts - most of these trips were paid for with campaign dollars (or other non-state monies), that is beside the point. There is still the issue of his Highway Patrol–provided security detail. Taxpayers do foot the bill for their travel costs as they accompany and protect our Governor. In a related vein, I have always questioned why we allow politicians to essentially campaign full time for another job while drawing a full time salary from their current job.
In contrast, the media was routinely and extremely tough on Governor Jesse Ventura for his out-of-state trips. For example, Ventura left the state – only occasionally – to show up on the David Letterman or Jay Leno shows (and for a few Saturdays to announce games for the fated and short-lived XFL football league). But without exception on each of these occasions, the Minnesota media loudly blasted Ventura!
My question is this: How are Ventura’s out-of-state excursions any different – or any worse – than Pawlenty’s purely political travels? In both cases these trips have NOTHING to do with our state’s business. Yet, the Minnesota media seem to write only glowingly about Pawlenty's trips (apparently because they believe the trips are evidence that he is a contender on the national scene). Whether he has the potential to be a presidential contender (a disputable assumption), is also largely beside the point.
What matters is this: There are serious challenges to be dealt with here at home (like honestly balancing the state budget rather than burdening the next Governor with cleaning up the budget mess). Yet, Pawlenty, instead of providing leadership and solutions, is essentially using the time remaining in his current job to seek another job. Most people would at the least have their pay deducted for the days they don’t show up for work. In contrast, the Minnesota media provide Pawlenty with flattering headlines. Go figure.
That is my two cents.
Tim
There seems to be a sort of sycophantic fascination with Tim Pawlenty and his (apparent) pursuit of the presidency. I guess it's sort of like how I get excited seeing the Prairie Home Companion movie that was filmed across the street from my old college, as if that somehow makes me Tommy Lee Jones. We ought not be blinded by the Kleig lights of the national press covering one of our own.
Pawlenty is a two-term Republican governor of a blue state. Thus, he's got bipartisan, crossover appeal. While the former sentence is fact, the latter is pure fiction. Democrats do not like one inch of him. The gridlock he argued would continue were he not elected has persisted nonetheless. His gubernatorial elections were only ever won with a plurality of votes, never a majority. That subtle distinction could be the torpedo in the side of his 2012 battleship. Without the 2 or 3 opponents at once that he's had in the past, his chances could diminish greatly in a head-to-head, 2-way race with the President.
When he tells you about how he cut the budget for his own staff, you should know that they just took money (more than 2/3 of $1 million) from various state agencies to cover the shortages. His canard of a no-tax-increase budget proposal this year relied heavily on federal stimulus dollars - a one-time, quick "fix" that failed to address the long-term problem. He avoids raising taxes by raising fees, as if the difference really matters. Let's remember these things, among all the rest, as he tries to pitch his national narrative as a "reformer" who got things done for Minnesota. Let's not be fooled simply because he's one of our own.
Area residents may remember last fall when our front yard posted two competing political signs. My son, Marcus, and I held differing views on the presidential candidates – though we shared similar views on other campaigns. Needless to say, whether we agree or disagree, politics is a frequent and lively topic of discussion around our house. Through this blog, Marcus and I will be sharing with you our thoughts on the issues (and candidates) of the day. We hope you come to enjoy our weekly “debates.”
Health care is too complicated to cover in one short blog. But, I expect we will regularly touch on some aspect of this important matter as the reform effort unfolds. For now, I would like to applaud all those who turned out for Congressman Walz’s town meeting last week (over 700 people packed the meeting with perhaps a similar number unable to get in due to space limitations). This truly is “democracy in action.” Clearly, there are strong emotions surrounding this issue – and many – often competing - points of view. But these voices need to be heard and considered.
Health care constitutes one sixth of our economy – so, naturally, workers in the health field and the insurance sector have a lot at stake. Employers and individuals struggling with annual double digit increases in health insurance premiums want to see health care cost control. Coverage for the uninsured - and for pre-existing conditions - is a high priority for many. In addition, addressing the exploding costs of Medicare and Medicaid must be part of the equation.
There are no simple answers and there will be no quick fixes. Whether – and how – the government addresses reform is going to affect each of us individually in some way. So, I am glad – and not surprised – that people are showing up and speaking out in large numbers. I agree with Congressman Walz that doing nothing is not an option. However, health care is too important to rush through. It warrants lots of public input and an attempt to find consensus – including bi-partisan support.
That is my two cents.
Tim
An attempt to find consensus is precisely what President Obama is seeking. Bipartisan support for a good health care reform bill is his ultimate goal – but he’s not going to find it. While Congressman Walz’s town hall was heated but respectful (“Minnesota nice,” I guess) other similar forums across the country have received negative attention for their histrionics. The criticism from the right has been more obstructive than constructive.
With cries of imaginary “Death Panels” and fears of government bureaucrats rationing your health care (because insurance bureaucrats aren’t currently in the same business?), it seems to me that this is opposition for opposition’s sake. Despite any concessions the President and congressional Democrats make to Republicans, I predict we’ll see the same type of thing we did on the stimulus bill: a near total shutout.
Zero House Republicans supported the stimulus, and only three GOP senators voted for it. One of those three is now a Democrat, and the other two are Maine Republicans – a breed almost as mythical as the aforementioned Death Panels. The fact that Democrats may have to go this one alone doesn’t automatically mean it will be a bad bill. We will have a bad bill, however, if we have one that fails to address costs or insure the uninsured.
My dad and I have a similar, conciliatory approach to politics. This can frustrate our more ideological friends. My own idealism ought not to be confused for liberalism (though I’ve got my fair share of that). His realism ought not to be confused for being rightwing (I grew up with the guy and rightwing he ain’t). We like to think of ourselves both as independents, and we hope you like to hear what we think – week after week.
0 comments
