Thoughts on the Mid-Terms & the New Congress

It’s been a while since I posted on here, but I just had some thoughts on today’s historic events that I thought I’d share. First of all, as a politically moderate supporter of President Obama, I was glad to see the Republicans take control back of the House of Representatives. For anyone who read my 2008 essay on the election, you know that I liked what then candidate Obama said regarding changing the political tone in Washington. Unfortunately, I think he found a Washington that was embroiled in political bickering and that was further complicated by his own party which realized it controlled power in all the political branches of government for the first time in 14 years. This resulted in the Democrats early on ignoring President Obama’s attempts to include Republicans on the stimulus just days into his presidency. Speaker Pelosi was intent on showing off the Democrats new found power and used it to swiftly pass the stimulus while President Obama was attempting to court Republicans. This ultimately set the tone for the next two years as Republicans quickly took to the role of minority party and simply criticizing anything proposed by the Democrats.

With the 2010 elections results (which were very predictable), there is now a return to shared government between the two parties. I was VERY pleased with the way things changed in December as three very important items were passed with varying levels of bi-partisan support – the two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, the ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I was hopeful that this was a precursor to how President Obama and Republican leadership would work together on getting things accomplished in the 112^th Congress where there will be shared responsibility.

Unfortunately, what I’ve heard out of House Republicans suggests something different. In fact, it suggests business as usual, such as more investigations into the executive branch and more catering to interest groups. However, the thing that really bothers me is the move to bring up a vote on the “repeal” of the healthcare reform that passed last year. What exactly are the House Republicans hoping to gain with this? I’m sure it will pass the House and they might even get some Democrats to come on board with it. However, it’s got no prayer in the Senate which the Democrats still control and President Obama would veto any such bill anyway. All the Republicans are trying to do is embarrass the President with this move as they want to pass it prior to the State of the Union Address. So that’s what we’re paying them for – passing useless bills just to embarrass the other party. Oh, & I’m not sure it even accomplishes its goal – how will it embarrass them?

Another thought that some of the Freshman Republicans who won in swing districts might want to consider before they vote “Yes” on repeal. Are you sure you want that to be your first big vote? Remember there are some good things in the original health care reform, such as not allowing insurance companies to deny you for pre-existing conditions or allowing children to stay on their parent’s insurance longer. You really want to vote “No” on that stuff? Because that’s what voting for repeal means. Keep in mind, the Congressmen who make up the Republican leadership in the House are mostly from safe districts, but that is not the case for some Freshmen who won in “swing” districts. By voting for repeal, you are writing your opponent's first negative ad when you run for re-election in 2012. “Congressmen X sided with the BIG insurance companies when he voted to allow them to deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition.”

Republicans need to remember the lessons of 1995-96 if they truly wish to use their 2010 victory as a spring board to retaking the White House in 2012. In 1995-96, Republicans tried this same thing with President Clinton. They tried embarrassing him and marginalizing him, and that was when they had control of both houses in Congress. Well, it didn’t work. Clinton rediscovered what made him a popular candidate with moderates and independents and he spoke to those voters again. You can see President Obama starting to do some of the same things in December with his willingness to compromise when it was in the best interest of the economy (extension of the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits), seizing the foreign policy mantle as Chief Diplomat (ratification of New START) and being practical in pushing for repeal of an unpopular and defective policy (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). I said it before the Mid-Terms and I’ll say it now, the Republicans taking control of the House might be the best thing to happen to President Obama. I’m interested to see how he approaches the State of the Union Address both in tone and in actual policy. I’ll try and check in then.

What Was Obama Thinking?

That was my initial gut reaction after the speech, “What was he thinking?” I expected optimistic oratory and I got a speech that seemed angry in its tone. In fact, as I was listening, it seemed like it took sometime before the President said a line that got applause – something that is rare for a State of the Union Address. Looking at the transcript, it was about 10% of the way through the speech that he got his first applause line. While that might not seem like much, most Presidents get an applause right at the beginning of a State of the Union Address by simply saying the “state of our union is strong.”

So what was different? After reflecting on it last night, it dawned on me that the President was not directing this speech to the American people but at Congress itself. In doing so, he was trying to reflect the anger that the American people felt towards Washington. Remember that last week’s election in Massachusetts was as much about the issues with Washington than it was as about health care. How do I know that? Massachusetts already has universal health care so in many ways the health care bill would not impact them, the way it would other states.

When I started to think about it, it made sense. He was trying to be the voice of the American people and criticize Congress for the tone and the way the “politics as usual” is done in that town. When things are going well economically, the American citizenry is much more willing to put up with political rancor. But when things go wrong, they turn on its politicians for playing petty politics and not trying to work towards common solutions. Along these lines, the President took both parties to task for the anger the people are feeling. He criticized the Democrats for having “the largest majority in decades and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.” He then turned to the Republicans and said “if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business … then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership.” He then summed it up with a line as he looked at both parties and said, “We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.”

He didn’t stop there though. Those of you who read my blog regularly and listened to the President last night had to know that the line that I loved the most was when he said, “Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.” I honestly believe that the President believes this. As he said earlier in the speech, he “didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.” In fact, I applaud the President for standing by his convictions regardless of the political cost. Ultimately, it may hurt his party come the fall elections, but he has committed himself to trying to accomplish these goals and that conviction came through last night.

So, in my preview, I was saying that the first thing I would be looking forwas optimistic oratory. While I didn’t get it, what I got instead, actually impressed me. It was a different kind of speech from the President and only time will tell if it resonates or works. We’ll see if he follows up on his promise to engage Republicans on health care reform or other issues and to hold monthly meetings with the senior leadership of both parties. Unfortunately, in an election year, there might not be much that gets done, but it could lay the critical groundwork for next year when there is a short window to accomplish things before the Presidential race of 2012 starts heating up.

The second thing I said I was going to look for is for the President to tell Congress exactly what he wanted them to do on health care reform. I’ve read some pundits this morning that seem to suggest that he didn’t say. I disagree (and it may be because the pundits didn’t like the answer). It seemed clear to me that he wants to engage Republicans on the issue and come to some consensus. In fact, he said, “Don't walk away from reform, not now, not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done.” He also said that if anyone “from either party” had ideas that met his goals of bringing down premiums and the deficit, covering the uninsured, strengthening Medicare for seniors, and stopping insurance company abuses, that he wanted them to let him know.

Ultimately, we will see how this progresses over the next couple months, but I hope that Republicans take this invitation seriously and engage in the process and stop just being the party of “No!” Also, I hope the liberal Democratic leadership (read: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) will allow some open discussion with the Republicans regarding the health care bill and will not just insist that it be their bill or nothing at all. I think that President Obama’s political advisor David Axelrod said it best a few weeks ago when he said that the Democrats cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, some health care reform bill is better than none at all.

The last thing I said I was looking for was how the President would address the economy and the budget deficit. Not surprisingly, it is how the President started his speech as he said his number one priority was a jobs bill. Everyone, including Republicans applauded the line. But will they vote for it? That remains to be seen. The devil will be in the details and the President provided some, such as tax credits for small businesses who hire and for “green jobs” and cutting capital gains taxes for small business investment. As he actually gave the details, I was struck by how much was there that Republicans could actually support. Bi-partisan support should be able to embrace those issues, we shall see if they do. The president wants it done immediately. It will rest in the Senate Republicans hands to see if they engage or simply continue to say no and use their new found member to filibuster the bill.

On deficit reduction, the President reiterated his call for a spending freeze on discretionary spending starting with the next budget (2011). He also called on the Senate to reinstate the PAY-GO laws which simply means that any new legislation which deals with revenues or expenditures must be revenue neutral, so if you are proposing a tax cut, you must show an equal offsetting expense reduction or raise in other taxes. The same goes with expenditures. Those of you who have read my blog from the beginning and read my essay on the 2008 election know that I am a HUGE fan of this law and it is one of the main reasons I was critical of the Republicans during the Bush administration who wrote tax cuts to avoid the PAYGO structure because they knew it couldn’t pass the muster of that law. Eventually, the Republicans just repealed it as the deficits grew so it wouldn’t hamper their plans. Ultimately, we’ll see what Congress does on these issues, but I like what the President proposed.

I don’t want people to think that they were not things that I disagreed with in the speech – there were, but this post is getting long already. In summary, I thought it was hypocritical for the President to call for more transparency in law making when the Democrats were not doing that on the health care bill. I also thought it was hypocritical for him to criticize the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finances when he is the biggest campaign fundraiser in the history of electoral politics. I also found that it was getting old that he continued to blame President Bush for the deficit he inherited. We know already that you inherited a bad economic situation, why do you always have to remind us? Surprising to some of my conservative friends, I will not criticize Obama on his call to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” but that is for another post.

One final note again about bi-partisanship: since the Senate voted down the independent bipartisan commission on deficit reduction, the President said he would appoint one by executive order. While it will not have the same weight that a Congressionally appointed commission would have had, I liked that he wasn’t going to be held hostage by the extremes of both parties who are the ones that defeated the commission in the first place. Now that’s leadership and it’s why on the whole, I thought the President’s speech was exactly what was called for in the midst of this political chaos.

Preview of the State of the Union

Tomorrow night President Obama will be giving his first State of the Union Address (Wednesday, January 27 at 9 PM EST). In many ways it couldn’t come at a better time for the President. With the Democrats’ loss in the Massachusetts special election and his continually dropping poll numbers, the President certainly could use a bump and typically the State of the Union Address does that for the sitting President. Of course, if it’s only a momentary bounce and nothing gets done in the next few months, it could be considered a huge failure. That is because of the approaching mid-term elections coming this November. While the President won’t be on the ballot, certainly his agenda will be. For these reasons, the State of the Union is probably the biggest thing the President will do this year as it will set the tone for the next few months as to what legislative things might be able to be accomplished and also set the tone for the coming election.

He’s already started to give a preview of what will be included in the address. I have read that he will say that “[He’s] a lot more optimistic than [he] was a year ago.” Along these lines he will address America’s resilience and for that reason, he is optimistic. Once again, I know that both conservatives and liberal cringe when I say this, but this is a page right out of Ronald Reagan’s playbook and I am still convinced that by the time he is done, he will become to the Democrats what Reagan is to the Republicans - a president who took over the country during a very difficult time both at home and abroad and was able to inspire us out of our malaise to believe in ourselves again.

This is the first thing I will be looking for – the typical Obama oratory that can inspire even the cynical; an oratory that makes you want the country (and by extension him) to succeed. Anything less that the full Obama oratorical skills will be very disappointing and will probably be judged a failure. State of the Union Addresses are typically used as the President giving a laundry list of items he wants to see passed. While President Obama will undoubtedly do some of this, I think if he focuses on a laundry list, it will be a mistake. Certainly he will need to make the case again for health care reform (more on that later), as well as jobs programs and fiscal discipline, but if it simply becomes some laundry list, it will lose the average American viewer and any oratory at the beginning or end will seem simply added for effect.

The second thing I want is for him to tell Congress what exactly he wants them to do on health care. Should the House pass the Senate bill? Should they strip it down to a bare bones bill that can have some moderate Republican support? Should they engage the Republicans in conference and try and reconcile the two bills to something that can get passed by both bodies? While he may not come out specifically and say it, I’ll be looking for how he addresses it and if his wishes can be read between the lines. However, Congress cannot be his only audience on this issue. As an advocate for health care reform, I want him to really make the case to the American people again as to why this is so important especially since the reform is so close. It is in this area that Obama the campaigner needs to return – not Obama the policy wonk.The final thing I’m looking forward to is his addressing the economic problems and the growing deficit. He has already made indications of what he will propose on the deficit as he is already calling for a freeze on non-security discretionary spending over the next three budget years. While this would still only apply to a portion of the federal budget, it will supposedly save $250 billion over the next decade. So how can the President help boost the economy, create jobs, all while not raising the deficit, I’ll be waiting to see what he says.

One final note (not pertaining to the State of the Union Address): is bi-partisanship truly dead? I am afraid so. The latest sign. Today, the Senate defeated the appointment of an independent bi-partisan commission to look at the long term problem of the deficit and to make recommendations as to how it can be addressed. How did it lose? Ironically, that was bi-partisan as the extremes of the parties defeated it together. The liberal democrats who want to protect entitlement programs voted it down for fear the commission would recommend cuts while the conservative republicans voted against it as they were concerned that the commission might propose tax increases. Mind you, the commissions job was only to make recommendations, but the extremes in both parties were still afraid to take an honest look at the situation. Once again, as a moderate, I feel completely left out as though my opinion is completely at the whim of the extremes in the political world. Have we become that polarized? Apparently so.

President Obama: If you can do anything to bring that civility and bi-partisanship back to Washington, now is the time. Unfortunately, I’m losing hope that it will ever change.

The Lights Went Out in Massachusetts

“And the lights went out in Massachusetts, the day I left her standing on her own.” That line from the Bee Gees hit “Massachusetts” must be running through the heads of many people in the democratic leadership tonight as the Republican Scott Brown has been projected as the winner of the special election to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat. I’ll get to my personal thoughts on the race in a minute, but I’ll put my political scientist hat on for the moment and discuss why I think the improbable occurred as a conservative Republican won a statewide race in one of the bluest states in the country. The first Republican to win a Senatorial election since 1972 (interestingly enough, the year I was born).

First: Voter Excitement. The Republicans clearly had the excitement level in this race. One of the many under-appreciated truisms of politics is that races aren’t necessarily won by convincing the other side to switch their vote or even get the undecided voters to break their way. It’s won by getting YOUR voters to the polls and the other side failing to do that. In a sentence, that’s what happened here. Clearly, Republicans and more conservative independents were fired up about the opportunity to send a message regarding what’s been happening nationally over the last year. They are fed up with the federal government’s spending and the health care bill became the prime example of it. In the meantime, the Democrats were NOT excited about Martha Coakley.

I spoke with my cousin last night who lives in Massachusetts in an area that is in a city just outside Boston and he remarked about how many Scott Brown signs he was seeing, but hardly any Coakley signs. And he lives in an area where there were plenty of Obama signs in 2008. While yard signs are not a good indicator of polls, they are a good indicator of voter excitement. You figure if someone is putting a sign in their yard that they are supporting a candidate, they certainly are going to vote come hell or high water. Additionally, the news reports I heard tonight suggested that voter turnout in Boston in the urban areas and in heavily minority areas was down in comparison to the rest of the state. That shows a difference in voter excitement in a much more tangible way. Voter excitement was clearly in Brown’s favor and as I write this 97% of the precincts have reported and he has a five point lead. That excitement clearly was the difference in those five points.

Second: Democratic Overconfidence. Think about it. If I had said after Ted Kennedy passed away in August that a conservative Republican was going to win the special election to fill his seat, you would have laughed me out of the room. I think the Democrats were thinking that way as well. Consider this: Scott Brown’s campaign was going on an ad blitz on this campaign as soon as the primary was over. The Coakley campaign acted as if the election was over once she won the primary. The simple fact is, she didn’t get serious about campaigning in this election until just a few weeks ago. I heard another pundit put it perfectly by saying, when Scott Brown was campaigning actively through the Christmas season, Martha Coakley was, literally, on vacation. It was only after the Coakley campaign realized that it might lose that it sprang into action. By that time it was too late. She had already been labeled by the other side and it was going to be difficult for her to reframe the election at that late hour.

Third: The Candidate. Along with some of the tactical mistakes of her campaign mentioned above, Martha Coakley turned out to be a weak candidate. She was too easily tied to Washington in a climate where people wanted to blame Washington. She also made some out right gaffes. My cousin relayed one to me that happened during the debate. The issue of Iraq and Afghanistan came up and she made a comment that we were no longer fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as we had driven them out. A couple days later the news a several soldiers being killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban drove home just how off that statement was.

All these things added up to a disastrous result for the Democrats and a HUGE victory for the Republicans winning that all important 41st seat in the Senate. I must say I am bittersweet about the result. Those of you who know me and my politics know that I still consider myself a moderate Republican and I enjoy seeing the party have a victory. I also feel that the Democrats deserved it for essentially setting this scenario up. Prior to 2004, the interim Senator appointed by Governor Patrick would have stayed in office until 2012, completing Senator Kennedy’s term. But in 2004, the Democrats changed the law because at the time they were worried about Republican Governor Mitt Romney appointing a replacement for John Kerry if he had won the presidential election against President Bush. So in some respects, the Democrats deserved this for trying to change the rules last time.

However, those of you who have followed my blog lately, know that I have been in support of the health care reform that is currently being debated. If this election ends up spelling the defeat of that legislation, I must say that I will be disappointed and for that reason, the result is bitter sweet.

So what now? I must give Luke Russert, of NBC News and son of the late Tim Russert, credit for this line, but I think it’s too good not to reprint – in the words of Axl Rose, Democrats must be asking themselves, “Where do we go now?” In the next day or two, I hope to post what options are available to the Democrats who are still hoping to pass health care reform. For now, I just keep thinking that the Democrats still must be thinking that as for health care reform “the lights [may have] went out in Massachusetts, the day [they] left her standing on her own.”

The Health Care Debate Part II

At the end of last year I posted my thoughts on the Health Care Debate and in summary said that I supported the idea that something needed to be done and some of the specifics I was in support of. I also reminded all of us that just because two bills had been passed by the houses of Congress did not mean that a final bill was a certainty. Once two separate bills are passed, it usually goes to a conference committee made up of both members of the House and Senate where a final bill is negotiated and taken back to both bodies for a simple up or down vote.

Well the Democratic leadership in both houses have decided to forego this formality and instead what is referred to as legislative ping-pong. Essentially, both houses will continue to amend their bills until they are identical. This avoids the need for a conference as the identical bills can be sent to President Obama presumably for his signature. Normally, I would not have a problem with this approach, but the way the Democrats are actually conducting these negotiations is completely out of the public eye. The democratic leaders are going to the White House for sessions with the President’s key advisors in a manner that completely shuts off the discussion from public scrutiny. The only updates that the public gets are the reports of what comes out of the people involved in the negotiations. With this approach, I cannot support the President who had promised to make government more transparent. This essentially hides the legislative process from the public and I believe sets a bad precedent for the future. Republicans have tried to make some hay out of this, but obviously, this whole story is taking a back seat to the tragedy that occurred in Haiti this week.

That being said, as I write this, it appears a deal has been reached on one of the key roadblocks to the bill – funding mechanisms. Organized labor was supporting the House bill as it funded the program through increased taxes on the wealthy, where the Senate bill taxed high end health care plans, many times referred to as “Cadillac plans.” Today, organized labor apparently agreed to the excise tax on high end health care plans in exchange for the limits being raised.

What remains unclear is where the negotiations are on other key points of dispute such as the Stupak Amendment, which deals with whether tax dollars would go to fund abortions under the plan. Once again the Stupak Amendment which prohibits such spending is in the House bill while it is not in the Senate bill. I will continue to try and monitor these updates, but like I said, the way the negotiations are being conducted, it becomes difficult to get information.

As for the Republicans, they continue to sit back and unanimously oppose the bill. There have been attempts to get one of the Maine Senators to come aboard, but so far, they have refused. The Republicans seem content to allow this bill to pass so that they can run against it. However, I must ask, “If you truly care about the future of your country and a bill which you think is absolutely horrible is about to be passed, why are you going to let it pass for hopeful political gain?” That my friends is how a politician thinks. They have no concern for the future generation, only the future election. I believe the Republicans dropped the ball on this health care debate last summer. Republicans pride themselves in being devoted to the free market and allowing the market to fix problems. It is for that reason that they despise government involvement in business and economics even when the practices of the business are such that they take advantage of the average consumer.

Last summer, Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed the idea of having health care reform be done by developing non-profit cooperatives which people could buy their insurance from. The idea was that the government would give an infusion of money to start the co-ops, but that they would then run themselves. The government might even provide stipends to low income people to pay the premiums or tax breaks to middle income people. However, the government itself would not be in the business of running any sort of health insurance plan. It would be the perfect way to inject some much needed competition into the health insurance industry and it would do it in a way that would force the for-profit companies to rethink the way they operate in only making decisions based on stock prices and bottom lines. When I heard the idea, I thought it was brilliant. It allowed the government to provide a sense of accountability in the industry without becoming directly involved while letting America’s free market approach ultimately fix some of the inequities.

So what happened? Eventually, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to take health care over for himself rather than have it go through the Finance Committee like it should. Probably because Senator Baucus is too moderate and liberals ridiculed the co-op idea as not going far enough and the plan was dropped. But for a month, it was a real possibility. Supposed Senate Republicans had recognized the long term value in such a plan and had decided to get behind it. Other moderate democrats like Ben Nelson & Evan Bayh certainly would have supported it as well. Once a few moderate democrats jumped on board it could have started a wave of support that could have really picked up steam and you would have had a truly bi-partisan effort in trying to reform health care. An opportunity missed on the Republican politicians. And why? Because they did not want to hand President Obama his prized piece of legislation on a silver platter because they know he would have benefited most

It was once said to me that “Politicians make decisions based on the next election while Statesmen make decisions based on the next generation.” As I watch the polls, this health care debate may be weighing in the Republicans favor politically for the mid-terms, but I can’t help but think, why are there so many politicians in the Republican party – the party I’ve called my home? Yet, right now, there seems to be statesmen in the Democratic party as they are voting on legislation that they believe will help the next generation even if it costs them this November. Even if you disagree with their politics, that is courage and conviction you have to admire, and for some (not all), it makes them a statesman in my book.

The Health Care Debate – Perfect v. Good

Ever since the health care debate started this past summer, I have been trying to figure out how to express my thoughts on this controversial topic. Part of my hesitancy to post was due to my own uncertainty concerning the proposals and part was due to the fact that I was struggling on how to express my thoughts in a concise cohesive fashion. As I have researched it; listened to the talking heads; listened to the common man and even listened to health professionals, I have come to the conclusion that the topic is too confusing to even be summed up in one post, let alone in the 15 second sound bites that you hear on the evening news.

That made me think of something I heard recently from some of the democrats who were calling for compromise regarding the health care bill. They said that you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, just because something is not perfect does not mean it shouldn’t be pursued. Rather if it is still good and better than the alternative of doing nothing, then indeed, it is worth pursuing even if it may not be the ideal. I am sort of viewing my post along those lines. This is not going to be a perfectly thought out position, nor is it going to be some treatise on the bill. Rather, here are some general thoughts about health care in general and how they relate to the proposed bills.

First of all, something needs to be done. Nothing makes me more frustrated in the health care debate than to hear conservatives say things such as “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” This insinuates that the current system works. For the average American who has a good health care plan through their employer, yes it does work and the people who make that comment are generally (if not always) in that category. Unfortunately, the number of people in that category continues to shrink.

As an attorney in practice for myself, I am thankful that my wife’s work provides coverage for us (at a cost), but frankly, there are many times my wife Jen and I look at each other and say to one another, “what are we paying this for?” Everything health related that we do use seems to either not be covered (like chiropractic care or medical massage both of which Jen requires for her bad shoulder) or if it is covered, they come with such large co-pays that we wonder if we would actually save money by not paying for the insurance and just paying the service as we need it. The only thing that prevents us from doing so is the chance at some major medical need arising where we would need the coverage. I hear other people saying similar things regarding coverage and co-pays. All this means to me that he current cost of health care has gotten too far out of control. Along those lines something clearly needs to be done.

Second, just because the Senate passed a bill on Christmas Eve does not mean that passage of the bill is a certainty. They are MANY differences between the House and Senate versions and for those of you who need some brushing up on your Government 101, the bill will now go into conference between the two chambers to try and hash out a deal. If a compromise is reached (and I emphasize IF), the bill then goes back to both chambers for a simple up or down vote. No more amendments are allowed once it comes out of conference.

You will now be hearing a lot in the news about the conference that will be meeting between the House and Senate to try and work out the differences. For instance, one of the major hurdles is abortion and the so-called Stupak amendment. Congressman Stupak (D-MI) offered an amendment to the House version of the bill that would prohibit federal dollars from being spent to cover abortions. The amendment passed in the House and therefore was added to the bill. It was largely believed that many moderate house democrats, like Congressman Stupak, were unwilling to vote for the bill as a whole if the amendment was not added. A similar amendment was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) but it was never added and therefore is not part of the Senate bill.

Another major difference between the bills is the existence of a public option. The House bill provides for a government insurance option that people would be able to purchase based on income level. At certain income levels, it would become an entitlement. The Senate bill does not provide for such an option. Instead it mandates everyone carry insurance and provides some tax credits and some public funding to make it affordable for people to buy policies from private insurers. Whether the conference can come to some resolution on these and many other differences will decide the ultimate fate of the health care bill.

Thirdly, like I said above something needs to be done and I think that the bills that have been proposed are a step in the right direction. First of all, both bills require insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions and not disqualify them from coverage. Additionally, they require coverage for certain preventative screenings which will actually cut long term health care costs if problems are detected earlier. These are things that have been sorely needed for some time now.

Along these lines, I hope that it will make health insurance companies think more about their customers than their shareholders as has been the case in the last several decades. Another line that conservatives spout that makes me cringe is when they decry “government run health care” as meaning the decision about someone’s health will not be made by the patient and the doctor but by some government bureaucrat. The problem with this argument is that it assumes the current system allows for medical decisions to be made by the doctor and patient when in fact it is made by some insurance company bureaucrat. So what’s really the difference? At least the government bureaucrat won’t be answering to next quarter’s profit and loss statement and what that will do to stock prices.

So those are some of my thoughts for now. I’ll try and be better about posting as the bills go through conference. As for my next post, since I still consider myself a Republican, I’ll post where I think they went wrong in the long term on this health care debate – so keep checking in.

Random Thoughts

It has been a while since I posted on this blog and with everything that has happened in the past couple of months, I figured I drop a few random thoughts.

Sonia Sotomayor: When I last posted it was to give my thoughts on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. At that time, I took the position that I thought she should be confirmed and that the Republicans should avoid a big nomination fight. So I was pleased that she was confirmed as the first Hispanic justice on the high court. As I said in my last post, I am sure that the worst case scenario for conservatives is that the balance of power will remain as is.

Republicans and the Hispanic Vote: In my last post, I also indicated that I wanted to do a post regarding the growing Hispanic vote and what that means for the Republicans. I still plan on doing that in more detail in the future, but for now I was glad to see that, except for a wayward comment by Newt Gingrich, the Republicans seemed fair in their treatment of her and those that voted against her clearly did so on ideological grounds. In other words, I do not think that the Republicans did anything in the confirmation vote that would specifically turn off the Hispanic vote.

However, on a bad note, the Republicans lost their only Hispanic member in the Senate with the resignation of Mel Martinez. I have already begun doing some research on the Hispanic vote for the Republicans and I will write about it as we head into next year’s mid-term elections. However, suffice it to say if Republicans do not figure out how to begin to make more inroads into the Hispanic vote, they will be a minority party for many years.

Health Care: At this point I am still doing a lot of research on the current health care bill(s) pending in Congress and I really have not decided what my position is on the controversial bill. I do know that something needs to be done, but I want to know more about the current proposals before I decide if they are appropriate. My wife, who is a nurse, has given me plenty of suggested reading. If any of you would like to add to this list, feel free to let me know. In the meantime, I have contacted my local Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and requested a meeting to discuss what the bill means for those with disabilities – an issue that is obviously close to my heart.

At this point, I will hold off on my other thoughts regarding the bill, but there is one thing that has me very fired up and that is some of the out right misinformation that is being given about the bill. It is one thing for someone who is advocating for or against a certain measure to misstate a fact or get some statistics mixed up, but with the debate on this bill it seems as though advocates on the right such as Sarah Palin have crafted an outright lie as a way of stoking the right into a frenzy about the bill.

By now you may have heard of Sarah Palin referring to a “death panel” that her down syndrome son would have to face if the current bill is passed. It has caused many on the right to become very fired up about this bill. Now I know that there are other reasons why the town hall meetings that congressmen have been holding have been so contentious, but Ms. Palin’s comments certainly did not help.

So what is the truth? There is a provision in the House bill which would reimburse doctors who have a consultation with their patient about making end of life decisions. It is a voluntary consultation for the patient and the patient and their own personal physician ultimately make the decision about that end of life care. It is being supported by The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union. Additionally, AARP has come out and called the claims false as well and will take out print media ads to say so. However, it is this provision that the right is now using to say that there would be a “death panel.”

An interesting note, as an attorney I have helped numerous clients prepare living wills which make these same end of life health care decisions. Sometimes the client is uncertain about various parts of the living will, so I counsel them to consider it with their family and their doctor. With the proposed provision, the client would then be able to make an appointment with their doctor to discuss the living will and it would be paid for so that the client would not have to pay for such an appointment.

What bothers me most about this misinformation is that it is so blatantly false that the only explanation for it is that the right is trying to use it to anger its base and get them to oppose the bill even more ferociously. For those of you who read my essay on the 2008 election and why I supported Barack Obama, one of the reasons I gave was that I was sick and tired of the way the right campaigned in elections and issues. While both sides can debate in a divisive manner, in my opinion the conservatives have been more guilty, at least recently, of trying to use distraction, misinformation and division in politics. President Obama clearly tried to “change the tone in Washington,” but it seems clear to me that many of the Republicans are not willing to let that happen.

It is obvious that the tone has not changed in this debate and many Republicans are of a mindset that they just want to “win.” They do not care about the hearth care crisis in America. Well as long as they just try to use the issue to damage President Obama’s approval ratings rather than actually come up with a solution, this is one Republican vote that they will NOT win back. I want statesmen right now, not individuals who are just trying to see how they can win some seats back in Congress next year. A note to you Republicans who are trying to win the “issue” so you can win an election: by being more divisive you only further alienate those of us in the middle. You may “fire up” your base and you may actually win a few seats back in the House, but at what cost?

Like I said, I am unsure on how I feel about the health care reform bill as a whole, but I know something needs to be done. As someone watching the action from the sidelines, it appears to me as though President Obama is actually trying to craft a solution while the Republicans are just trying to turn back the clock to 1993-94 all over again. I wish that Congress would put aside some of the party labels every once in awhile on a very serious domestic issue and come up with one bi-partisan solution and rather than try and use every issue for political advantage. We see Congress unite when there is a serious foreign threat to our country. Why can’t they behave the same way for a serious domestic threat?

I’m not saying that Republicans should give the President whatever he wants, but they should pull their heads out of the sand and realize that there is a health care crisis in this country. If there is a crisis, then shouldn’t something be done about it? And if something should be done, isn’t there some common ground that can be reached? No, instead the party to which I have belonged for my adult life is more content to just sit back and try to play political football with the issue in order to score some points and possibly help their chances in the next election. That is not statesmanship, it is politics at its worst.

Please Republicans in Congress, will more than a handful of moderate Senators step up to the table and have a meaningful conversation about how to solve an issue which does threaten our economic vitality? I know I would feel better as a citizen if both parties hashed out a plan that most could agree upon.