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