Like a lot of us, I was sure the Supreme Court would make a favorable ruling on the Affordable Health Care case and render the whole thing unconstitutional. Sadly, that didn’t happen. I never actually read the act so I’m not sure why I thought it would be overturned. I guess that NOT reading thing is a failing we all suffer from.
With regard to the Court’s ruling, the two sides can argue about the motivation of Justice Roberts and the merits of the health care statute till the cows come home but the fact remains until the thing is repealed it is the law of the land.
In the legislative arena we see majority parties jam through bad laws every day; whether it’s a state legislature or the US Congress, the majority rules. I don’t remember which pundit said it but I have to agree that the laws passed by a majority don’t make them fair or just or right but they are legal. The recourse is to amend or repeal them.
And, whining seldom changes a thing. For all the years that the Democrats ran roughshod over the state of Wisconsin the Republicans had to take it. That was just the way it was.
Then, the tide turned and the remaining Democrats had to taste a little of their own medicine.
Needless to say payback’s a bitch. Interestingly though when they were getting their lunch handed to them, instead of gracefully taking it, they bolted the legislature to prevent the Republican majority from voting on legislation they disagreed with. A very childish response revealing something about their character but again, whining doesn’t change a thing but it can make you look really stupid.
In all my years in government I have been a champion of process. Reliable, predictable process is what makes the system work.
In the case of the Obamacare Affordable Healthcare Law the Democrats held a super-majority in both houses of the Congress so they didn’t have to follow the normal process prescribed by their “rules” because they were able to “suspend the rules” when it suited their needs. The two thousand six hundred page law was drafted outside of the normal process and the substance was never debated in any committees so when the whole thing was engrossed for approval very few people knew what actually was in it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi was crowing at the microphone prior to the House vote, “We have to approve the bill before we can find out what’s in the bill.” And all the Democrats were actually onboard with her? What’s with that?
Maybe they did know what was in it and knew of the firestorm that would follow if it were exposed in public. So they consciously demonstrated a willingness to subvert the process and deceive the country with their supposed ignorance rather than taking the heat of the normal public process. Those House members who supported that action should have been vilified publicly at the least and thrown out of office at the first opportunity.
From a process standpoint that should be a fatal flaw. Not so much a Constitutional flaw but clear sign of bad faith government.
So here we are, the court has let stand one of the worst laws ever passed by the Congress. In the Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts tries to clarify that the Court’s job is not to invalidate bad legislation because it’s bad, but to determine the Constitutionality of the legislation. In a very carefully worded opinion the Court ruled that most of the law would survive.
Bummer!
It would have been so simple for the court to overturn the law and send it back to the Congress for a “do over” but it didn’t happen. And in spite of the fact that I would have preferred that outcome the “process guy” in me knew the only real resolution for bad law is to amend it or repeal it in the same venue as it was created.
If we rally the troops to elect Republicans this fall, what exactly will our healthcare bill look like? In the past two years the Republican majority in the House has held a bunch of hearings and voted on more than one healthcare bill that died in the Senate. So do they have one they are willing to fall on their sword for?
Republicans need to articulate what Healthcare Reform looks like for them since the Democrats have their deal on the table. Complaining about bad legislation is not a substitution for a better alternative.
We need to elect enough members to both the House of Representatives and the Senate to send a bill the new President that will accomplish what we wanted the court to do.
I hope we’re up to the task.
No Loss for Words 
Negativity Works on Ignorant Voters
by Steve DanaAs the election season enters the final month in 2012, everyone is ready for it to be over. Nobody likes the volume or the tenor of the negative campaign ads. Unfortunately, negative ads about the “other guy” are way more effective than positive ads about your own candidate. The electorate seems to believe or respond more to the bad things said about all the candidates. It’s sad that our system has devolved to that point. It doesn’t seem to matter if the negatives are true or false. If an allegation is said and repeated a hundred times, it must be true.
Having been a candidate in a campaign where things were said about me that weren’t true, I know how difficult it is to deal with it.
So if we are all so sick of the negative campaigning, can’t we do something about it? The short answer is NO. The long answer is YES but with a great deal of effort from our citizenry.
Our constitution guarantees the right of free speech so limiting what one candidate can say about another is not an option. The laws of slander and libel cause candidates and their surrogates to walk a thin line when “bad mouthing” an opponent; but short of accusing a candidate of criminal behavior anything goes. And in a couple cases this year one candidate in particular was accused of criminal acts but not by an opposing candidate.
Maybe limiting the amount of money spent on a campaign might be a solution. That idea has been circulating for some time. If you limit the amount they can spend the candidates will have to choose which path they favor, and that will, by itself, be an indicator of character. More often than not, the result of limiting campaign spending is to give an advantage to an incumbent. Name familiarity alone can swing an election; certainly if the challenger doesn’t already have some public exposure.
Personally, I would be an advocate of voter testing. In order to work in the concession stand at the carnival, workers are required to pass a test to secure a food handler’s permit. If we require testing at that level, this should be a “no brainer”. Every voter should have to pass an exam that tests a voter’s knowledge of the election process; where the information is to assist in making an informed choice. Not to steer voters to one party or another, but to insure that voters are informed of their rights.
If every voter was required to read the voter’s pamphlet and be ready to answer questions they would be able to see the differences between the candidates from the positive point of view since candidates tend to showcase their strengths and their goals for their time in office in the pamphlet. Negative campaigning is most often handled by Political Action Committees (PACs).
The reason there is a disconnect between our elected officials and the electorate is because most of us don’t pay attention to the promises made in the campaign and the results delivered after being elected.
Then add to that the partisanship. Our two party system gives candidates and voters only two choices. Duh! And when you get right down to it, what do the Parties stand for?
If a voter identifies with a Political Party first and only supports candidates of that party they never test whether the candidates advocate for issues or represent values similar to their own. If that is the case, then those folks don’t care to read the voter’s pamphlet. Testing them wouldn’t be a waste though because if they can pass the test then at least being stupid was their choice and not someone else’s.
As time has passed, the parties have evolved; and not for the better.
Observing who supports a party financially is one of the best methods of estimating who the party will advocate for if their candidates are successful.
In my view;
The Democrat Party is closely identified with labor unions, alternative lifestyle and environmental advocacy groups. It tends to believe that bigger government is the solution to society’s problems. It also supports the idea that successful hard working citizens should be required to share the fruits of their labor at a higher rate than others.
The Republican Party is closely identified with Pro-Business groups and Christian Conservative advocacy groups. Republicans tend to believe that government’s role is to serve the people rather than have the people serve the government. Republicans tend to believe that if you work hard and are successful the government shouldn’t tax you at an unreasonable rate to the benefit of folks not willing to make the same sacrifices.
Neither of the two mainstream parties seems to be too concerned about how far from our Constitution our government has strayed. Certainly inside the beltway, the folks in power in both parties are reluctant to talk about it. But Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been shaking the bars across the country drawing attention to it because he sees beyond his own tenure in government; to the eventual doom of our country if we don’t start migrating back to the Constitutional principles espoused by our founders.
I tend to agree with the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and principal authors of the Federalist Papers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who outlined the risks and rewards of adopting our form of government. They wrote about their concerns in the late 1700’s that have sadly become the norm in government today.
For readers that don’t know me, let me say I’m a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Moderate. I’ve been a capitalist and a business owner most of my adult life so I hang with Republicans. I’m probably a Libertarian. When I ran for County Council in 2009 my campaign platform included 1) Limiting the size and scope of government and 2) Guaranteeing private property rights
I was a Tea Party guy before there was a Tea Party. Unfortunately, the movement hadn’t caught on enough to get me elected. Having said that, the Republican Party didn’t support me when I ran for office.
The stereotyping of the parties and their candidates along with the party’s demand that a candidate toe the line, consistent with the party line, contribute to the frustration in a campaign when voters are trying to sort out the favorites and the duds and filter the negatives for a kernel of truth or character.
For candidates that have been previously elected to public office the process is a bit easier since they have a track record that should speak to some of the issues. Add to that editorial board interviews and candidate forums and you can get a good ideal about a veteran.
It’s the first timers and previous losers we have the most trouble with since we don’t have a clue about their ability to do the job, let alone effectively if they are elected. Those same editorial board interviews and candidate forums help, but there is no substitute for experience. I guess the word “effectively” is the key since in a strictly partisan environment voting along party lines is considered effective.
For candidates that haven’t served in a public office before you need to look at their background, their work experiences and their education to determine if they possess the skills to do the particular job.
If you are running for Sewer Commissioner you might need different skills than if you want to be a US Senator. It’s amazing how many people run for School Board seats without a bit of budget experience. Generally school boards manage the top one or two budgets in a community and quite often the elected board members just take the word of the district finance guy or the superintendent when making multi-million dollar decisions.
The bottom line for eliminating negativity in campaigning is removing the power of the two political parties in the Congress and legislatures across the country so the parties are not pulling all the strings and educating voters.
It’s disheartening when a reporter interviewed quite a few college students on the campus of DenverUniversity following the first Presidential debate. Time after time he asked the students if they thought it was unfair that President Obama was not allowed to use a teleprompter and they answered YES.
K-12 Education at the highest level should be our goal so when kids are old enough to vote they are capable of understanding their responsibility. If college students appear that ignorant on that campus, is that an indication of students across the country?
I certainly hope not!
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »