The 2009 Health Care Bill Fiasco

No matter how this year's Health Care reform plays out I hope academics and historians are paying attention and keeping good notes. When we look back on the events of this past year we will realize that after much public debate and behind-the-scenes deals, when it comes to health care reform, just about everyone lost.

If a health care reform bill passes, Republicans certainly lose and Democrats will lose because almost nothing they initially wanted remains. Of course passage will be viewed as a political victory for the Obama administration, but unfortunately there is no victory for anyone who values meaningful results that actually benefit citizens in a meaningful, and measurable, way. If the bill fails we will have spent months without any progress toward meaningful reform.

The process started well. President Obama is elected by a strong majority after a campaign that had health-care reform as a cornerstone. He studied the lessons of President Clinton's failed health care reform efforts and pushed Congress to pass something before his “honeymoon” popularity passed. But that effort not to waste time is what destroyed this bill. Promises of bipartisanship continued to be made, but clearly couldn't happen in such a hurried effort. Then prominent congressmen mocked the idea of actually reading the bill before voting on it. (While I applaud their honesty, I'm appalled that they think this is a good thing. Clearly in a representative government there is an expectation that our representatives will do their homework, otherwise what's the point of having representatives?) This public display of incompetence proved to be yet another catalyst for public opposition to the bill. Then there were the historic town-hall meetings where representatives were clearly unprepared to discuss the bill, perhaps because their constituents had read the bill and they hadn't. Not doing your homework has a way of catching up with you. The President chose to cash in some political chips and addressed a joint session of Congress, too bad so little of what he promised in that speech wasn't actually in the bill at that time, nor is it in the current bill. Congress attempted to manage public descent by simply not publishing the bill for public review, but fortunately we still have a free press and free speech.

On second thought, I think the founding fathers win. The Bill of Rights was designed to help keep the government in line and hold them accountable. Considering the majority the President has in both houses and the ineptness of the minority party, the difficulty pushing this bill through is a direct result of public descent expressed through free speech. Just as the founding fathers intended.


That's Mr. Huey's 2-cents.

I recently read a blog complaining about “dead blogs” and how the owners of these blogs shouldn't bother. Of course this blog was written by a professional journalist. The assumption of this pro seemed to be that the multitude of bloggers all aspire to compete with the big-boys.

Well, as you can see, I'm guilty of owning a “dead blog,” which I admit is far less populated that I originally envisioned. So have I failed as a blogger? Be careful before you answer that, I still haven't told you why I started my blog. If you judge me as a failure, or a success, you've applied your own standards, not mine.

I started this blog as an outlet for when I felt the need to speak out. Normally I get enough of an outlet talking with friends and family. Sometimes 140 characters and a touch of sarcasm on Twitter satisfies the urge. And often my blog is sidelined by the hustle and bustle of daily life, which, unlike the life of a professional journalist, does not revolve around me writing my opinion for others to read. In the end, while my ego would love to have a long list of readers I write this blog for me to write, more than I do for anyone else to read. Which, as you can see, is a good thing...

Reflecting on the birth of our nation this past 4th of July, I couldn't help but contemplate the original tea party. Historians like to tell us why the Boston Tea Party happened, but historians being historians don't really know, they don't even all agree. Was it a simple taxation-without-representation protest? A statement of colony self-rule? Something else? Historians aside, I can tell you people do things for their own reasons, often with a common theme, but if you could ask the original “Tea Partiers” you'd likely hear different explanations, some articulate, some not, but most would likely express a dissatisfaction and frustration with the government.

The original “Tea Partiers” couldn't know what a tradition of citizen protest they were starting. Americans protest our government publicly, it's what we do. Traditionally it has been a forum for the left, perhaps it's ironic that the right has now embraced public protest, but it is every American's right.

Why are these tea parties happening? Ask a dozen “Tea Partiers” and you'll likely get a dozen different answers, but a single theme, a dissatisfaction and frustration with the government. Many critics have attempted to classify these protests as simply either ignorant or racist. Some say today's “Tea Partiers” don't understand the history of the original event, possibly true, but completely irrelevant. Some have said it's a racist thing. Apparently when they look at our president they only see a black man. When I look at our President I see a man who has promised to fundamentally change America and is already outspending all of his predecessors combined. Other critics have chastised protesters saying we must not disagree with an administration that was elected by a majority, but that's not how we do things in America. We have a history of protecting the rights of the minority to be heard, it's ingrained in our constitution and upheld many times by the Supreme Court.

So to the “Tea Partiers” I say, keep up the good work, stay positive, and be proud of your country, what you're doing is important.

Freedom to Worship

President Obama's comment in Turkey: “America is not a Christian nation.” How could he?!? Of course we're a Christian nation! One nation under God! Read the Constitution!

I appreciate the concern here, given the President's, and his party's track record, and I wonder about the thought process that led him to saying it, but once again he's got the Right spooled-up over non-issues and looking a bit like fools. I do wish more of our laws were guided by Christian values, but appreciate having a government that prohibits itself from telling me how to worship. (At least in theory.)

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution clearly says: “We the people of the United States, in order to … secure the blessings of liberty” but somehow neglected to mention Jesus, or God in any specific manifestation. Why is that? I love reading history, but am no historian, so I can't easily answer that question, but I can tell you those men thoroughly debated those four pages. If God was omitted, it was likely not an oversight.

The Constitution was written to outline how the government would operate, not how the citizenry would live their lives. Some of the founding fathers even opposed the Bill of Rights, not because they opposed the rights, but because they felt it was not necessary and feared rights might be misinterpreted as coming from the state. (Sound familiar?)

By not establishing a religion, the people were left to worship as they please. This was clearly important, since the very first item in the very first amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” In this very amateur historian's opinion, if the founding fathers intended to establish America as a Christian nation, they would have at this time. Instead, the freedom of the individual was protected and Caesar was left to manage what was Caesar's.

Having said that, the founding fathers were nearly all Christian men, guided by their Christian values. They applied those values to the nation they were building and prayed those who followed would do the same. America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, but America is not a Christian nation. And history tells us this is a good thing.

A blessed Easter to all.
Mr. Huey

Here's an exercise everyone should do for themselves. I'm not the first, but here's what I just calculated, using just U.S. Government data and a wealth report by Capgemini & Merrill Lynch.

Current national debt is $11 Trillion, or $36 Thousand per American.

Fortunately our plan is to get the rich to shoulder the burden. Before the current economic downturn, there were about 3.1 million millionaires in America. So they could each pitch in $3.6 million and pay this off today. Oops, some millionaires “only” have $1 million, so that won't work. Before you get too spun-up over these millionaires, do a search for: The Millionaire Next Door. You may be surprised at what you find.

OK, we tax income, not wealth and there were 3.8 million tax returns reporting over $200,000 gross income in 2006, so they could divide our current debt and each pay just $2.8 million. Of course if you make “just” $200,000 you'd have to pay all of your income in taxes for 14 years to pay your share. Hmm...

Don't forget, while these rich folks are paying off the debt, the rest of us will be paying for the actual cost of running our government. Without their help, we'll all have to pay a bunch more too.

You may have noticed I've chosen to ignore deficit spending projections for the next decade, but our 2012 national debt projection of over $16 Trillion max'ed out my calculator, sorry.

I'm no Tim Geithner, but it appears to me that even a strong economic recovery would not overcome this problem, and if we continue to grow our debt at this rate can we possibly even have a recovery? Clearly, this spending and taxing strategy can't work.

We need a new plan.

Cheers,
Mr. Huey

Reinventing America – Is it really Socialism? Who Cares?

There has been a prominent side discussion on President Obama's economic plan. During the campaign Sean Hannity used a quote from Karl Marx communist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” which sounds very much like a line that could have come from a candidate Obama speech. Currently “Socialism” is the buzz-word in the conservative media and blogosphere. President Obama, however, insists he's in favor of the free market.

There are a couple of problems with these labels. First problem is there are no universally accepted definitions. Next, you could probably get a consensus on “pure” Socialism, Communism, and a free market, but most countries, the US included, fall in the gray area in between. The disagreement comes in defining the borders between the various ideologies. Finally there is ignorance. most people don't understand these words. The term “Socialism” conjures up images of Hitler, Castro and the Soviet Union. Quite simply, these words are simply slurs and insults to most people, when you use them in a debate you may be factually correct, but you will not deliver your message. When you can't get your message across in a debate you lose the debate.

So what should conservatives do? Take a lesson from Ronald Reagan and phrase things in a way people will understand. Occasionally use these misunderstood terms correctly, but use them sparingly. You don't want to alienate your audience, you want to educate them. The more they understand, the more they will turn to conservatism and reject socialism.

Mr. Huey's Talking Points*:

• If you tax employers, how can they afford to hire new employees?
• You can't tax the economy into prosperity.
• Americans made this country great, not big government.
• Would you hire Barney Frank to run your company?
• Government regulation should be used to protect people, not manage private corporations. Child labor laws are an example of good regulation. Bad regulations like price fixing stifle innovation, drive companies out of business, and put people out of work.

*No, I didn't make all of these up myself but I know a good line when I see it. My complements to the authors.

Cheers,
Mr. Huey

Welcome

Thanks for dropping in. Brand new blog, so please come by later and you'll have something to read.