It’s fantastic to live in a government that is federalist in nature.
What is federalism exactly? It is a “system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” or state and local governments.
Bottom line? The federal government takes care of some nationwide issues, but state and local governments are the ones that really do most of the legwork. I support this system because it gives We, the people, better access to leaders and governmental entities that affect our daily lives the most. Plus, Massachusetts is dissimilar to Alabama and Arizona is very different than Iowa (although both states apparently have large canyons, if you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie).
Thus, in a system of federalism, it is no surprise that 50 different states have 50 different ways of running their governments. Personally, I think this is fantastic, because it gives local governments more control. Plus, it offers the federal government the unique opportunity to see what’s working in the states, and what’s not working in the states.
For example:
“Hey! This tort reform law is working really well in Oregon. Perhaps we should make it a federal law.”
Great! Federalism!
Our system of government gives Congress the chance to look at state programs, agencies, laws, and regulations and determine whether or not they would be appropriate at the federal level.
Therefore, what DOESN’T work at the state level should NOT be tried at the federal level. However, there are some in Congress who seemingly don’t understand how federalism works.
The following Wall Street Journal article discusses how statewide healthcare is currently failing in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is the kind of system that President Obama wishes to implement nationwide. I encourage you to peruse the entire article.
The best line comes at the very end of the article.
“The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.”
If it doesn’t work in one small state of 6 million people, it’s not going to work in a huge country of 300 million people. Period.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Health Care Reform?
The talk about health care reform is in the air. Now that the Democrats have firm control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they are certainly going to try and get the ball rolling for their health care agenda.
While I disagree with much of this agenda, I feel it’s especially important to understand that this entire debate that we’re about to have is part of a mostly covert strategy (by some folks’ own admission) that is designed to bring about exactly what the Democratic Party desires: socialized medicine within a single-payer health care system. Here's the playbook:
Step 1: Establish that a problem exists
Step 2: Debate several solutions to the problem
Step 3: Create a compromise
Step 4: Laud the compromise as the beginning of a new era
Step 5: Gradually transform the compromise plan into exactly what you wanted in the first place
The compromise in this situation is a public plan, which is what the President has been talking about as of late. He uses many words which are pleasing to some people’s ears: “Competition. Options. Freedom.”
His stated goal as President is to create a government run health care option, so that people can choose either their private plan or choose the new government plan. You have the freedom to choose your plan! Friendly competition! Free markets!
However, the President is very intelligent. Obama realizes that when private companies attempt to compete with the federal government, those companies will lose. I learned a similar lesson from The Shawshank Redemption: Public labor can always undercut private labor.
Because of this, private insurance will cease to exist, and a single payer health care system will emerge. This is the strategy…there’s no doubt about it.
We can debate the merits/fundamental flaws of single payer or the public option (and Congress will be doing this A LOT over the next year). However, I’m not going to talk about this right now. I’m simply here to criticize the Democrats for dishonesty. Watch the following three clips, and you’ll understand better.
Secretary Sebelius simply states that there is no strategy. However, this next clip demonstrates that the President is being disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.
Market competition? It’s all part of your strategy, President Obama. Why don’t you just tell us? Senator Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) feels free to let us know what’s actually going on.
I mentioned this in an earlier diary about gay marriage, but in general, I will respect those who want to have an honest, open, and genuine debate about issues. We may disagree in every conceivable way, but at least I’ll probably respect you.
I will NOT respect you if you are being untruthful. I find this most disheartening that the President clearly believes in the more radical single payer idea, but he does not want to use his political capital (he’s in the midst of his reelection campaign after all) to support it. Rather, he is stating his support for the more “moderate” idea of the public option, which stands a better chance of passing through Congress and public opinion. However, we all know the eventual goal that he has.
To attempt to stop Democrats from being disingenuous, I've crafted the following letter.
Dear Democrats:
You've been a party for a long time. Since 1828, you've been keeping it real in American politics...except during the times when you haven't had good policies or when you haven't been as honest as you should, such as right now.
If you wish to gain my respect:
Then and only then, will I respect you. And then and only then, will you find that your ideas might be a little out of the mainstream.
Sincerely
ghbraves
While I disagree with much of this agenda, I feel it’s especially important to understand that this entire debate that we’re about to have is part of a mostly covert strategy (by some folks’ own admission) that is designed to bring about exactly what the Democratic Party desires: socialized medicine within a single-payer health care system. Here's the playbook:
Step 1: Establish that a problem exists
Step 2: Debate several solutions to the problem
Step 3: Create a compromise
Step 4: Laud the compromise as the beginning of a new era
Step 5: Gradually transform the compromise plan into exactly what you wanted in the first place
The compromise in this situation is a public plan, which is what the President has been talking about as of late. He uses many words which are pleasing to some people’s ears: “Competition. Options. Freedom.”
His stated goal as President is to create a government run health care option, so that people can choose either their private plan or choose the new government plan. You have the freedom to choose your plan! Friendly competition! Free markets!
However, the President is very intelligent. Obama realizes that when private companies attempt to compete with the federal government, those companies will lose. I learned a similar lesson from The Shawshank Redemption: Public labor can always undercut private labor.
Because of this, private insurance will cease to exist, and a single payer health care system will emerge. This is the strategy…there’s no doubt about it.
We can debate the merits/fundamental flaws of single payer or the public option (and Congress will be doing this A LOT over the next year). However, I’m not going to talk about this right now. I’m simply here to criticize the Democrats for dishonesty. Watch the following three clips, and you’ll understand better.
Secretary Sebelius simply states that there is no strategy. However, this next clip demonstrates that the President is being disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.
Market competition? It’s all part of your strategy, President Obama. Why don’t you just tell us? Senator Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) feels free to let us know what’s actually going on.
I mentioned this in an earlier diary about gay marriage, but in general, I will respect those who want to have an honest, open, and genuine debate about issues. We may disagree in every conceivable way, but at least I’ll probably respect you.
I will NOT respect you if you are being untruthful. I find this most disheartening that the President clearly believes in the more radical single payer idea, but he does not want to use his political capital (he’s in the midst of his reelection campaign after all) to support it. Rather, he is stating his support for the more “moderate” idea of the public option, which stands a better chance of passing through Congress and public opinion. However, we all know the eventual goal that he has.
To attempt to stop Democrats from being disingenuous, I've crafted the following letter.
Dear Democrats:
You've been a party for a long time. Since 1828, you've been keeping it real in American politics...except during the times when you haven't had good policies or when you haven't been as honest as you should, such as right now.
If you wish to gain my respect:
- Keep it real! Say what you mean and mean what you say!
- Don’t say that you support the moderate public health option, when you really want single payer.
- Don’t say that you support marriage between a man and a woman, when you really want gay marriage and polygamy (or as you have been calling it, equal marriage for all)
- Don’t try and trick the public. Stand up for your beliefs! Shout them from the rooftops!
Then and only then, will I respect you. And then and only then, will you find that your ideas might be a little out of the mainstream.
Sincerely
ghbraves
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Saturday Morning Musings
As the 2010 elections are merely 18 months away, the campaign for governor will begin shortly. Some might say it has already begun.
As such, we Republicans are looking to ensure that Governor Chet Culver will not be reelected. Fortunately, the tides may be beginning to turn against the governor.
Let’s take a look at the most recent poll from late April.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chet Culver is doing as Governor?
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 50%
Net Popularity: -8%
Generally speaking, if you sit below that 50% mark in a poll, you’re in trouble. Culver sits well below that line.
In his defense, the economy is not terribly strong, jobless claims have increased, and some people across the country are saying that this is the next Great Depression. With all of the negative talk that has been permeating this nation, it’s not really that surprising that Iowans feel as though the leadership of this state and nation is problematic. With strong feelings of discontent among Iowans evident, one would expect to see our other three leaders who have been elected statewide to feel the popularity pinch. However, we don’t really see evidence of this.
Let’s take a look at Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and President Obama.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chuck Grassley is doing as Senator?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 32%
Net Popularity: +27%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Harkin is doing as Senator?
Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 38%
Net Popularity: +13%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 35%
Net Popularity: +24%
It appears that these three are not as harmed by the economic downturn as our poor governor. It also demonstrates that Senator Grassley remains more popular than Tom Harkin (and President Obama).
Why is this? I’m guessing it’s because Chuck Grassley is a better United States Senator.
As such, we Republicans are looking to ensure that Governor Chet Culver will not be reelected. Fortunately, the tides may be beginning to turn against the governor.
Let’s take a look at the most recent poll from late April.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chet Culver is doing as Governor?
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 50%
Net Popularity: -8%
Generally speaking, if you sit below that 50% mark in a poll, you’re in trouble. Culver sits well below that line.
In his defense, the economy is not terribly strong, jobless claims have increased, and some people across the country are saying that this is the next Great Depression. With all of the negative talk that has been permeating this nation, it’s not really that surprising that Iowans feel as though the leadership of this state and nation is problematic. With strong feelings of discontent among Iowans evident, one would expect to see our other three leaders who have been elected statewide to feel the popularity pinch. However, we don’t really see evidence of this.
Let’s take a look at Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and President Obama.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chuck Grassley is doing as Senator?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 32%
Net Popularity: +27%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Harkin is doing as Senator?
Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 38%
Net Popularity: +13%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 35%
Net Popularity: +24%
It appears that these three are not as harmed by the economic downturn as our poor governor. It also demonstrates that Senator Grassley remains more popular than Tom Harkin (and President Obama).
Why is this? I’m guessing it’s because Chuck Grassley is a better United States Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
