Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The skanner. (Portland, Or.) 1975-2014 | View Entire Issue (May 25, 2011)
Opinion Healthcare: A Dissenting View From the Right T hose of us who practice punditry, or who are serious students of politics, are familiar with the term "wave" election. We have just experienced three of these in a row. In 2006, Democrats and Independents rose up and smacked the majority Republicans in Congress, reduc- ing them to a minority in both houses. In 2008, Democrats and Independents united again to pro- duce a strong wave for President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies on the Hill. So strong was this wave that states like Indiana and Virginia, which had not gone for the Democrats in decades, were swept into the win- ner's column. The 54 percent of the popular vote won by Barack Obama was not as impressive as the 59 percent that backed Ronald Reagan in 1984 or the 61 percent that gave Richard Nixon forty-nine states, but in governing terms it was truly a wave. That's because it gave the incoming new president an his- toric opportunity to govern with strong liberal majorities in both F aMily r eSearCh Robert Morrison houses of Congress. Now, it's becoming clear that 2008 was also a "waive" election, our first. That's because the strong liberal majorities that came in with President Obama swept opposi- tion before them in passing the historic health care takeover in March, 2010. It was the first time in modern history that a Congress ignored public opinion polls that had shown consistently for a year that the American people were opposed to the step they were about to take. The health care takeover, labeled "ObamaCare" by oppo- nents, was passed by narrow majorities without a single mem- ber of the opposition party in either house agreeing. This was unprecedented. Not Civil Rights, not Medicare, not even controver- sial measures like the creation of the federal Education Department or the giveaway of the Panama Canal were so unpopular they couldn't claim a single vote from the opposition party. How was 2008 also a "waive" election? Because of waivers. Some 1400 waivers have been granted by the administration. These are temporary relief from the rigors of the new health care law. They have been granted, it seems, to favored constituents of this administration. How can this be? If this health care reform is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why would some folks not even want a crumb? Unions, especially public sector unions, seem to be high on the list of waivees. So are busi- nesses with fifty-plus employees who happen to be located in for- mer Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D- Calif.) San Francisco district. Now, that's a story. The main reason Nancy Pelosi is the former Speaker of the House is that she single-mindedly pushed the health care bill through. Recall, she said if they had to go around the fence, over the wall, or parachute in, the House majority would pass the health care bill. Many of us thought the wall she was referring to was the Constitution. The fence was the system of checks-and-bal- ances given us by the Founders. People would have to have the bill passed and signed into law, Nancy Pelosi assured us, before they could fully know what was in the bill. Only then would they begin to warm to it. They did more than warm to its secret benefits; they grew intense- ly hot. That's what explained the "wave" election of last fall, when Pelosi lost her majority over this issue. The "waive" election of 2008 was unprecedented in another way: It's the first time in American history that Congress created a benefit that presumably benefited the governing coalition's con- stituents that many of those same loyal supporters want no part of. Imagine if, on passage of the Civil Right Act in 1964, millions of black Americans refused to ride in the front of the bus, or eat at integrated lunch counters. Imagine if they had responded to passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 by staying away from the polls in droves. That's actually what is happen- ing now. Some of the liberal con- stituency groups are trying eagerly to avoid ObamaCare - all the while demanding that the rest of us not get waived. What we are seeing is an open- ing up of previously undreamed of occasions for political corruption and chicanery. Or, should I say Chicago-ry? The only remedy for this is the total repeal of ObamaCare. It's time to go back to the drawing board. And this time, let's consult the owner's manual - the Constitution. Robert Morrison is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, a right-wing Christian lobbying group. What do you think? Post it on www.theskanner.com We Have to Raise the Debt Ceiling For Fiscal Security A recent Gallup poll found that 47 per- cent of all Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling. Only 19 percent support raising the ceiling past its current $12.1 trillion dollar limit. The remainder of us say we don’t know enough about the debt ceiling to have an opinion. That’s part of our prob- lem. More of us know about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s baby mama drama than about our nation’s finances. And, more of us are actually interested in the sordid drama than in a decision that may ultimately affect our nation’s financial health. Of course, most of us have no dog in the B enneTT C ollege Julianne Malveaux program in the name of fis- cal efficiency. He wouldn’t tweak it, or impose cost sav- ings; he’d simply get rid of it. His proposal is so dra- conian that even former Congressman and potential presidential candidate Newt Gringrich criticized it. And the Tea Party holds such sway on Republican opin- ion that Gingrich had to quickly backtrack and apol- ogize for his remarks. The apology was not enough – Gingrich was excoriated by fellow Republicans for his position. He had a great week, actually, with the rev- elation of his big-spending ways (he ran up a six-figure bill at Tiffany’s), and with the indignity of a glitter shower in Minneapolis. Read the rest online at www.theskanner.com affecting our position in the global economic market. So, we have no choice but raise the debt ceiling. At the same time, the price that Boehner and his gang would extract is high. Will we sacrifice the poor, seniors, and public services to preserve our credit rat- ing? Many argue that we make some of the same choices in our personal lives when we have more month Will we sacrifice the poor, seniors, and public services to preserve our credit rating? Schwarzenegger mess, and all of us are impacted by these budget decisions. We have no choice but raise the debt ceiling, and House Speaker John Boehner (R- OH) is insisting on dracon- ian budget cuts as the price for Republican acquies- cence to increase the debt ceiling. He wants cuts that hurt education, senior citi- zens, and the needy, and he may well have the political clout to impose such cuts. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling we will not have the dollars to pay on our obliga- tions. We owe $12.09 tril- lion dollars and must pay interest on that debt. If we default on our borrowing, our credit rating will tank, than money. Either a credi- tor goes unpaid, or we go without something we need. We have seen senior citi- zens making the choice between medication and food, school systems sacri- ficing bright and promising new teachers for those who are tenured, colleges and universities eliminating classes and majors because their budgets have been cut. If all of us have to make these cuts, some argue, so should the United States. But, some approach this debt ceiling with a hidden agenda. They would simply like to cut the size of gov- ernment. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) would virtual- ly eviscerate the Medicare May 25, 2011 The Portland Skanner Page 5
