The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again

In August 2009 I wrote a post about how I thought it was a little hypocritical of the Mass legislature to change election law to make sure someone would be seated in the late-Senator Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat when in 2004 they took that power away from the governor (then governor Mitt Romney).  The heavily Democratic legislature worried that should Senator Kerry win the 2004 presidential election, Governor Romney would appoint a Republican to fill the remainder of his term.  To counter this potential problem, the MA legislature instituted a new rule – that special elections be held 145 to 165 days after a sitting Senator vacate their seat and that no one be appointed to fill the vacancy during that period.  Back in September, the MA legislature changed their mind and allowed the governor, Deval Patrick, a Democrat, to seat Paul Kirk, a Democratic Party man who would vote in lock step with the Democrats in the Senate – not necessarily a bad thing since he was appointed to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy. 

The resulting problem with taking this action back in 2004 is that the heavily Democratic state legislature and the Democratic Party never fathomed that come 2010, a Republican (gasp) could actually be elected to the Senate.  This was their seat – after all, it was Kennedy’s seat and if someone had to take his place, it should have been a true blue Democrat.  It was in 1947 that MA last elected a Republican Senator to fill this seat and 1973 when MA last sent a Republican to Congress to fill either Senate seat. 

The irony is all of this (ok, one of the many ironies from this election) is that Brown is now the next Senator from MA because of the Democratic MA legislature.  If the MA legislature would have let sleeping dogs lie in 2004, there would be a Democrat in this MA Senate seat until Kennedy’s term finished in 2012.  But now, due to their meddling, MA will soon send the 41st GOP vote to the Senate, probably killing one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s lifelong policy goals.

I can't help but hear Nelson Muntz in the background on this one.

I choose you…

Recent news on health care – and tell me this isn’t picking winners and losers:

The White House has come up with a plan to appease unions in the health care battle.  It is going to:

1. Raise the Cadillac plan limit to $24k (from 23k)
2. Exclude dental and vision from that calculation
3. Exempt all union workers from any Cadillac plan tax until 2017 (Gee, who pays then?)
4. Consumer health plans will be indexed to the CPI plus 1 percent…not indexed to the rate of inflation for health care.  Why?  CPI rises much slower than does health care inflation.  If it were indexed to health care inflation, my current family plan would never hit the tax (by the way, I pay 20 percent of anything).  Under this new proposal, my family plan may hit the tax in 10 to 15 years.  Sooner or later, everyone will be under the tax.  So instead of doing something to lower the costs of health care, Congress would be making sure that we use less of it (the benefits in our plans will have to be continually decreased in order to stay under the 24k limit). 

 

Ahh, it’s nice to be in power.

Our special today – politics with a side of hypocrisy

If it looks like I am picking on Democrats, I am – they are the ones with all the power. 

A headline in an article in today’s Washington Post said that the Democrats’ desire to place someone in the Massachusetts Senate seat before a special election is drawing accusations of hypocrisy.  Curious, I read the article just to see what cockamamie scheme the Republicans were trying to pull with this one.  To my surprise, this wasn’t some crazy scheme but a legitimate gripe. 

In 2004, Democrats in Massachusetts were concerned that should Senator Kerry win the Presidency, the governor would be able to choose his replacement.  Why was this a concern?  For the first time in a long while (forgive me – too lazy to look up when the last time was), a Republican held the governor’s seat – Mitt Romney.  They were concerned that Mitt Romney would pick a Republican Senator to replace Senator Kerry.  So the Democratic Mass Legislature passed a law that requires a special election be held 145 to 165 days after a Senate seat opens.  This is how it is today, and this is what has so many Democrats concerned about the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. 

To address the issue of not having someone quickly fill the open seat, Democrats in Mass are now advocating that the governor be able to choose a replacement until a special election be held.  Apparently Democrats in Mass are more worried about not having representation now (due to the health care bill) than there were in 2004/2005, when there were not many pressing issues before Congress (try not to remember social security reform, war appropriations, implementing Medicare Part D, and the like).  Of course, it doesn’t hurt that a Democrat now sits in the governor’s seat in Massachusetts. 

When said like this, it looks as if Democrats are just worried about getting health care passed and ensuring that Massachusetts is properly represented.  But it’s much more than this.  Power makes us do crazy things, and apparently it also gives us short memories.  The problem with this kind of overwhelming power, where one party holds the vast majority of power in one area (state of Mass), is that past actions tend to hold little bearing on future actions.  It seems that in an effort to react quickly to Senator Kennedy’s death and the impact this would have on his legacy of passing universal health care, Democrats forgot about the law they passed just a few years ago – a law that was passed for purely political reasons.  Now their past politics is coming back to bite them in the you know where. 

Hypocrisy? – no doubt about it.  This one is pretty cut and dry to me.

                                              -   S. Lobbyist

Agree to disagree, but you’re still a racist

Seemingly every week, when we see another problem with President Obama’s policies or political tactics, his problems are blamed on the obvious racist tendencies of middle, and white, America.  Paul Krugman with the New York Times recently called out those who are protesting at town hall meetings by saying they are against current health care reform proposals due to a deep-seeded bias against our first black president.  This is that same middle America that in November voted into office our first black president.  But since they are white and against the administration’s health care policy, they must be racist, since there are no logical reasons to oppose the President’s health care reform proposals.  First rule of political debate with the current Democratic Party - when you sense that you are losing the debate based on your policy stance, blame it on race. 

Political debate is moving on to dangerous grounds for most Americans.  Disagree with the President on a policy stance, you are a racist.  No more can we simply agree to disagree in a debate – now those that disagree with the President must prove that they are not racist, and THEN prove that the policy is wrong.  Those that use race to separate the country would be wise to realize that calling over 50% of America racist, simply because they believe government run health care is a bad deal, may just make it difficult to win elections.  Maybe, just maybe, Americans have seen past the political rhetoric and can now view the facts of what the Congressional health care overhaul could do to this country, and it has them nervous.

Facts are stubborn things . . . except when they aren’t facts.

Now, before I jump in, let me remind you that I support health care reform. I know that many out there maintain that the system isn’t even broken.  Ok, can we at least agree that costs are out of control? A backgrounder from the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2007 US health care expenditures passed $2.2 trillion, an average of $7,421 per citizen which accounts for16.2% of GDP – higher than any other industrialized nation. It seems that if we are spending more than anyone else that they’ve found some efficiencies we haven’t found; so call it inefficient or call it broken. Reform is needed.

I was concerned by two bits of news that developed in the last few days. First, was the development of the White House “Reality Check” website which, according to an email sent out today in David Axelrod’s name, will “help you separate fact from fiction and share the truth about health insurance reform.” (I’ll refrain from commenting on the politically astute move the White House is pulling here by recasting this as “health insurance reform” rather than “health care reform”.) This comes on the heels of a blog post on the White House blog last week titled “Facts Are Stubborn Things“, which smugly declares “Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, “facts are stubborn things.”, and encourages citizens to send information they deem “fishy” about “health insurance reform” to flag@whitehouse.gov.

All of this – the Axelrod email, the website, the blog post, and asking citizens to “flag” misinformation is far too political for my tastes. I certainly support any President trying to drum up support for his proposals and legislative initiatives, but this just feels like a political campaign.

Then, this concept of “facts” showed up again on Monday in a piece written by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in USA Today. Writing about the “ugly campaign” to misrepresent “health insurance reform” and to “disrupt public meetings” they declare: “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”

They then proceed to list these “facts” – Reform will

• mean more patient choice
• free doctors and patients to make health decisions rather than insurance companies
• mean peace and stability for the middle class
• mean that insurance companies will never again be able to reject you for pre-existing conditions

These are hardly “facts”. At this point they amount to little more than a wish-list of outcomes. Some may in fact be very plausible outcomes, but that does not make them facts. What Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer probably meant to say was ” “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of  how close we are to moving through historic legislation without engaging in meaningful debate on the real facts themselves. Drowning out our talking points is simply un-American. Drowning out our talking points makes it difficult for us to steamroll our agenda through Congress and avoid serious debate on the issue.”

Again, I don’t mind any one trying to make the case for their initiative or proposal; you’d be silly not to. But please don’t pretend like your position is not only the onlv valid option, and that somehow disagreeing with you is un-patriotic. We just went through 8 years of that.

This is me.

First, allow me to fully endorse the name of our blog. Things WOULD be a lot easier if people just did what I said. But since I can’t even get my two sons to do what I say, I guess I’ll just have to try the powers of persuasion.

Earlier this year I found myself with a classmate in a taxi flying down the new Corniche in Dakar, Senegal. We were discussing my pending application to join the Foreign Service. “You know,” she said to me “It makes me so glad that someone with your politics wants to join the Foreign Service. That way you won’t be around at home to mess up domestic policy.”

Had you known this young woman as I did you would have responded like I did. “Oh JT,” I sighed, rolling my eyes, “You don’t know my politics.” She was basing her assumptions on my few and far between comments in one course and the fact that I supported Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican Primary. This brief anecdote sums up one of my major concerns about American politics: labels. It isn’t simply a political problem to be sure. People, but especially Americans, are obssessed with labeling people. It makes things easy for us to compartmentalize people. It removes nuance and whats more it removes our responsibility to actually seek to understand a person. We hear one thought from an indivudal’s mouth and instantly place them into our premade cubby hole.

You support a tax raise? You must be a redistributing socialist. You have a “Support Our Troops” sticker on your car? Oh, you are an imperialist who wants to impose American views on the world.” Goodness knows what we’d do if we met someone with a “Support Our Troops” sticker who supported a tax raise. There isn’t a cubby hole for that!

People who don’t fit into our cubby holes are often called, at least in the political world, centrists or moderates. These terms are usually taken as euphemisms for “one without principle”. I take issue with that – I have principles, I have strong core values and beliefs that inform my political thought and action. More often than not my principles do not fit neatly into premade cubby holes.

So, with that said, I want to provide my thoughts and positions on a few of today’s important issues.

The Economy
We must stop pretending that the government creates jobs. People who take advantage of opportunity create jobs. Government may facilitate this opportunity. We must also accept the reality that taxes are necessary to pay for the services we all enjoy, although efficiency should be government’s primary goal in service delivery. I believe we must be individually efficient and responsible. Our economy is an aggregate of our individual behavior and choices – if the economy tanks we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Foreign Policy
It is in our best interest – and the world’s – that America maintain its position as the strongest nation in the world. America’s true strength is her democratic values and ideals, and we must reaffirm our commitment to them by drastically increasing the resources available to our diplomatic efforts. We must have both the best trained and equipped diplomatic corps and the best trained and equipped fighting forces.

Environment
God made us the stewards of the earth, and I believe we will one day be held accountable for that stewardship. I believe we can walk the fine line between caring for our planet and severely hampering the business and industry that power our economies and our lives. We can start by accepting personal responsibility and action on the part of individuals, rich and poor, and nations, both developed and still developing.

Health Care
We often hear that under government mandated healthcare the wait for visits or procedures may be months long. I am already experiencing this. While I believe a single-payer government system will only make it worse I believe our health care model is broken. It will take a serious effort and collaboration on the part of the private and public sectors to address it. Every American should have access to affordable healthcare and to the best care.

Immigration
We must do better at securing our borders, but building a wall is not the right answer. It is foolish to think that our nation could withstand the economic or social costs of deporting the millions of illegal immigrants already here. They power our economy and the vast majority came seeking the American promise – the opportunity for a better life. Illegal immigrants should not be granted special status over those who came legally and have waited in line for years, but we must find a way to incorporate them into our nation.

Life
The first unalienable right listed in our Declaration of Independence is life. We must protect and value life above all else. Men and women do have the right to choose what they do with their bodies – but once a choice is made and a new life created we have no right to terminate it.

Now which cubby hole is that?

Just who do you think you are?

Who am I?

I live in Alexandria, VA with my wife and three little boys.  I am active in my church,  I work for a trade association in DC as a lobbyist (yes, I wear a scarlet ”L” on my suit coat) and I have an interest in politics.  I vote based on issues, not party.  I have voted for individuals in both major parties, and once even voted for an independent.  Like most of America, I cannot successfully be labeled as one thing or the other, which tends to drive pollsters crazy.  Does that make me an independent – sure, if that makes you feel better, go ahead slap that that label on me.  Still makes if hard to define what I believe. 

So to set the record straight, this is what I believe.   

Gun control- sure, so long as people can still buy guns.  Uzis?  Probably not necessary.  Shooting wolves out of a helicopter?  Only if the wolves can have ground to air missiles. 

Abortion- this is where my uber-conservative streak comes in.  Only allowed in cases of threat to the mother’s health, incest or rape.  Otherwise we are teaching generations that you don’t have to take responsibility for your own actions.  Want choice?  Then choose not to have sex. 

Education- PAY THE TEACHERS MORE!  Have you seen youth these days?  Anyone willing to spend time with your kids so you don’t have to teach them how to read, do math, write, exercise and do many other vital activities should be paid more.  Besides, pay teachers more and you’ll get better quality teachers.  This doesn’t absolve parents from being the driving force behind their child’s education, though.  Teachers can only reinforce the skills parents teach in the home.

States Rights – Do states have rights anymore?  With all the federal mandates states have to follow, states cannot effectively choose most things for themselves without first making sure it fits within federal guidelines. 

Freedom of Religion- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – seems pretty clear to me.  Funny, I see no mention of keeping religion separate from government.  Hmmm…

Fiscal Responsibility- Unfortunately there are few in Congress that seem to understand what it means to be fiscally responsible.  I don’t beleive we should do away with all taxes, nor do I believe we should tax the rich to give to the poor.  I believe, though, there is a way to be a proper steward of the people’s money – spending it on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska is not an example of such a steward. 

Tax Law - There is a glass ceiling in the US – it our current tax system.  Our current tax law is unintentionally set up make it extremely difficult for the middle class to break through to the “upper class” and for the poor to get off the government’s payroll. 

Immigration – Build a wall if you must.  Just make the doors into the country very wide.  The vast majority of those that enter this country illegally through our Southern border do so because they know they can have a better life in the states.  You want to stop the flow?  Then build the Mexican economy. 

What does that make me?