On February 25th we were treated to a special display of how our political leaders handle an important issue known as The Health Care problem.
I elected to punish myself for most of that day and observe the spectacle for almost all of the 7 hour marathon. There were a few interesting tidbits. Almost anyone who watched would agree there is not a dime’s worth of truth to the popular complaint there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Practically every Democrat had a personal story about a constituent who is tragically affected by health care problems. Never mind that none of them could relate directly as to how these unfortunate souls should be helped, only that they have big problems. Senator Slaughter probably took the top prize when she tearfully explained that one of her supporters was so destitute she was wearing her dead sister’s dentures that fitted poorly. Why is this episode relevant since neither the House bill nor the Senate bill covers dental expenditures anyhow? If this bothers Madam Senator so severely, why not take 400 dollars from her Senate slush fund and buy this gal a new set of falsies.
The Republicans did not use their time in an emotional display, but presented a logical list of important features to be considered. These included tort reform (trial lawyers’ goldmine), buying insurance across state lines, Medical Savings Accounts and less government involvement, not more. This contrast points out the differences in approach – emotion vs. logic.
So what was accomplished and who had the best performance? Even the
left-leaning pundits and publications – New York Times. Washington Post, CNN, Time magazine all agreed nothing was accomplished. None of these opinion leaders even suggested the President Obama and his cohorts made any progress on convincing anyone they had a sensible cost-saving plan.
Two days after the performance CNN, not a bastion of conservatism, conducted a poll and discovered only 25 percent of those polled believe the country should proceed with the Senate and House health care bills. A full three-fourths (75%) want our Congress to stop and start over.
This nationally televised extravaganza was billed as a bi-partisan event. As might be expected the President and the Democrats used two-thirds of the televised time. The President, on his own, pontificated more than the entire Republican contingent. That is probably defined as fair and equitable by our liberal friends.
As facilitator, discussion leader or dictator, President Obama continuously threw in little barbs to remind everyone he is the “One”. When challenged by Senator McConnell on the time dominance, his reply was, “Well, I am the President”. All participants showed respect for the Office of the President, but Obama continually referred to everyone as Bob, Mitch, Ron or Bill. They should have taken a cue from Barbara Boxer who dressed down an army general for not addressing her as Senator Boxer. As she lectured the general, “I worked very hard to attain this title and I would appreciate if it you would call me Senator Boxer.” You would never hear such self-important dribble from Republican leaders.
When Senator Eric Cantor started reading from a couple of provisions of this monstrosity of the 2500 page Senate bill, Obama sarcastically interrupted with, “Now let me guess – is that giant stack of papers the health care bill?” He then accused
Senator Cantor of using props as if reading from and referring to the actual health bill is deceitful and misleading.
As the days following this televised exhibition the pundits seem to agree no progress was made and the probable next development will be for the Democrats to proceed with a little used procedure called “reconciliation”. This means to do away with the time honored rule that on major legislation, 60 percent of senators must agree.
During President Bush’s reign Republicans were threatening to use the “reconciliation” approach to approve nominees for the Supreme Court. The Democrats went bonkers. Democrats made comments such as,”destroying the Republic”, the tyranny of the majority”, “criminal abuse of power”. As a Senator, Barack Obama made an impassioned speech warning this tactic could destroy the Senate as we know it. Now somehow, according to the Democrats, it’s a normal tactic used frequently by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. The liberals are famous for name changing if it deems to be more politically correct. When Republicans threatened to use this procedure, it was touted by the lefties as the “Nuclear Option” (simply dreadful). It was then described as “reconciliation”. Hoping to receive more favorable appeal it is now referred to as a “simple majority”.
The bottom line for many of us is that regardless of the merits of the program or the lack of such merits, we, as a country, cannot afford it. This message is coming on stronger each day so that Obama, Reid and Pelosi can no longer ignore this basic economic point.
(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)
