The case for repealing the health care reform bill By Chad Stevens

The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as this year’s health care reform bill, should be either gutted or repealed. It is failing to achieve the objectives it was designed to produce. Health care reform was supposed to control costs while also expanding health care coverage for those currently lacking. It marginally succeeds at one and completely misses the mark on the other goal. This is not good enough. The health care reform will, over the next decade, reduce the number of uncovered Americans to roughly 15 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is an improvement from today, though it certainly doesn’t provide coverage for as many people as hoped for. Those who are covered by expanded government programs will, over time, end up getting inferior access and care from their plans, as a third of doctors have already quit accepting Medicaid patients. This figure is likely to rise as the government looks to control costs in the coming years. People covered with a government plan are increasingly likely to face rationing and loss of choice about treatments in the coming years as well. Massachusetts, having already adopted a universal health care system, is facing sharply rising costs and is looking at aggressive means to control costs by limiting access to “low priority/low value services” and placing a total cap on the expenditures of the system each year. While we aren’t about to witness Sarah Palin’s death panels, the quality of care provided by the government will sharply decline in the coming years as it begins to ration services and more doctors drop out of the system. The other problem with this reform is that it simply doesn’t bend the cost curve like Obama promised. Health care spending, as a proportion of the total economy, has been rising sharply for years now. Under Obama’s plan, however, the rate at which health care costs rise, as a proportion of the whole economy, will rise even faster than if we had done nothing, according to data compiled by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services. So I take back my earlier comment. Obama bent the cost curve, but in the wrong direction. Health care costs will rise even faster than if we had done nothing. Amazing. Proponents of the bill point to the fact that over the next decade, this bill will save the government a substantial sum of money. This is true. But the savings comes from the fact that the government is shifting the burden of health care costs onto corporations and private citizens.  Shifting a cost is not the same as lowering the cost. True reform would have lowered the rising trajectory of health care costs. This reform just tries to hide the problem with new taxes and regulations. The core reform that makes the plan revenue positive for the government is the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance, with stiff fines for those people that ignore the mandate. This mandate to buy health insurance, whether you want it or not, does several things. It forces healthy young people –– a main group that lacks health insurance today –– to buy insurance they don’t need, in effect subsidizing the whole system. Young people will pay far more in premiums than they receive in benefits, thus providing a source of new revenues for private insurers that will slow the rates of premium increases for existing customers. The government is counting on this effect, plus the substantial revenue to be gained from fining those people who refuse to buy health insurance, to fund the rest of the health care reform. The problem is that this mandate is probably unconstitutional. As the mandate is neither a tax nor a regulation that would pass constitutional muster on its own, its constitutionality is dubious. Proponents argue that since many health care expenses cross state lines, they can be regulated by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. We’ll see if that dubious argument holds up in court. If the mandate is struck down, the economics of the whole bill quit working. Even if the mandate survives, this bill isn’t the sort of reform we need. We should repeal this bill and start over, with a focus on controlling costs.

Republican Party needs to make room for a ‘big tent’ By Juan Tristan

Imagine, if you will, a big tent. Now, this tent doesn't hold a circus or campers, but a party - the Republican Party. For years, even decades, the Republican Party has strived to maintain a kind of umbrella organization, one that contains several different types of conservatives from many different backgrounds. But try as they might to pretend their party holds more than the typical social conservative, the big tent is quickly losing the diversity that would make such a party strong. The Republicans are losing diversity in both ideas and in demographics. Perhaps because of the conservative nature of the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party is rejecting many of the more liberal members of its party. Furthermore, Republicans have alienated women and minorities in a way that could make it hard for those groups ever to return to its folds. All this in the name of winning an election. Some might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Take, for example, Colin Powell and the falling out he had with the Republican Party, specifically with Dick Cheney last year. In a May 10, 2009 interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," Cheney said he thought Powell had left the party because of his liberalism and support for President Obama. Instead of having Powell, he said he would much rather have people like Rush Limbaugh as members of the party. Powell is a telling example, not only because he represents one of the few powerful African-Americans in the Republican Party, but because he holds a relatively moderate view compared to his colleagues. How then should other African-Americans or moderate Republicans feel if such an important and high-ranking member can be pushed out simply because his views differ from those of the mainstream? A more recent example comes from Alaska. An Aug. 24 primary dealt a blow to the senior senator from the state, Lisa Murkowski. In retaliation to what she described as unfair treatment during the campaign, she decided to run as a write-in candidate for the general election. A Sept. 18 article by Bridget Johnson on thehill.com reported that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina responded by calling her a "big-tent hypocrite" who didn't care about winning seats for the Republican Party. DeMint went on to criticize his colleague because she does not support repealing the recent health care legislation and because of her stance on abortion. I can easily understand the importance of winning seats; that's the most basic reason for any party's existence. I cannot understand, however, the vehemence with which Republicans reject those in their own party with even slightly different views. Essentially, Republicans want members who are going to vote down party lines without exception. They want members who follow the words of pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. More than anything, they want members who will help them win this next election. But in exchange for those few seats now, Republicans have lost sight of the long-term importance of maintaining a stable party. Much like the big tent they once strived to achieve, a stable party must be anchored down. Those anchors come not from a homogenous party that votes according to dogmatic ideals, but from diversity. Diversity in politics and in demographics would allow the Republican Party to address the changing nature of America effectively. Otherwise, Republicans will be left following the whims of public opinion and the politics of movements like the Tea Party. Instead of throwing those with different views under the bus (or in this case, the Tea Party Express), I suggest the Republican Party returns to its bigger, more inclusive tent.

Immigration and Public Schools don’t mix well By Chad Stevens

Immigration reform is an extremely controversial topic. What isn’t that controversial is the strain that immigration and especially illegal immigration is placing on our public services. Milton Friedman once said, “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” One of the public services being stretched the thinnest is our public education system. Public schools are exploding with kids. According to the Department of Education, the number of school-aged children has reached 55 million. By 2100, that number is expected to be over 100 million school-aged children. Immigrants and the children of immigrants account for nearly all of this growth in school enrollment. The sad reality is that the schools that are being overcrowded and underfunded the most are the schools that need the most help. Inner-city schools where students already have many disadvantages are seeing their limited resources being spent simply trying to keep up with the ever increasing student enrollment. Programs such as bilingual training and bilingual classrooms cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars while also making the learning environment more difficult. Big class sizes while being forced to be taught in multiple languages with scarce resources are not the best way to educate children, especially those already disadvantaged. The biggest problem with the dramatic increase in illegal immigrants in public schools is that it is not financially sustainable. With so many states in financial trouble, many are already cutting into education funds. Teachers are being laid off or seeing their benefits cut, new learning equipment is being delayed, textbooks aren’t being bought, and so forth. Using reports by the US Immigration and Naturalization Services and figures from the Digest of Education Statistics, in the year 2002 the state of Kansas spent nearly $47,000,000 on education for illegal immigrants. Obviously this cost has only risen in the past seven years. It seems to me that this money would be better spent compensating teachers, purchasing computers and other education equipment, and paying for other educational programs such as afterschool care. This is not a matter of not being sympathetic to illegal immigrants or the immigrants we take in legally every year. The fact is, most of the world is poorer (much poorer) than the illegal immigrants crossing over the Mexican border. Are those in Niger, Myanmar, Yemen, Haiti, Laos, etc. not just as deserving of our compassion as any other person we seek to “take in” or rescue from poverty? Letting a million or so immigrants in legally and watching millions more enter illegally is not a sincere effort into helping the third world and those in poverty. These poor countries are reproducing so quickly that any hope we have to take in immigrants is quickly undone by their rapid population growth. Foreign direct investment, micro loans, non government organizations, stopping brain drain – the loss of the brightest individuals from poor countries, are all ways to help developing countries. Immigration is not one of them. There are many ways we can help the third world. Becoming a third world country ourselves is not one of them. As our education system continues to be questioned and analysts’ claim that our education standards are declining relative to the rest of the world, overcrowding and underfunding schools is not a viable option for developing the next generation of Americans. I don’t believe there is any hope to reestablish and build on our public education system until immigration reform is accomplished. Until then it will only get worse – we will continue to scrape pennies to build on to overcrowded and badly resourced schools.

Not a Democrat? Not a Republican? Not a candidate. By Juan Tristan

Don’t judge a politician by his religion, his city of birth or the color of his skin. These are some of the lessons we have learned over the years of American political highs and lows. We have elected a black president, we have elected a catholic president and we’ve entertained the thought of electing a podunk Alaskan vice president. With all of the openness of mind Americans have displayed over the years of unlikely political players, it astounds me that the handicapped, the Catholic (in a world of Protestants), the disadvantaged, the minorities and even women have all had their chance at political stardom but third party candidates have not. Why do we all accept that it is OK to judge a candidate by the name of his or her party without any research into the candidate’s ideas, credentials or background? Why is it that we can move past all other labels, skin colors, sexes and even sexual orientations in politics but we can’t move past the imaginary two-party line? “Not a Democrat? Not a Republican? Not a candidate,” seems to be the motto of the American people who have long been brainwashed by the idea of a two-party system while miraculously being scrubbed clean of all other prejudices. The third party prejudice remains (and sometimes seems stronger than ever) as more viable third party candidates present themselves. The money thrown at parties oppressing the opposition is the juggernaut that keeps this special brand of bigotry alive. The ignorant claim that a third party vote is a “throw away” vote is propagated and kept alive by Democrats, Republicans and people with third party prejudices, despite the fact that they claim to be fully fed up with both Democrats and Republicans. Political prejudice must be overcome. Learning that black was not less capable than white, catholic was not less capable than protestant and that a man in a wheelchair could run this country was a great and important stride. Learning that someone who is neither Democrat nor Republican is as capable of holding political office as a big party politician has got to be next.

“The President is so out of touch” By Jamal Allen

About 20 minutes of our time was given to Obama for a “war” speech about a week ago. A war in which someone else led us into despite what Michael Steele wants to believe. Someone started a countdown in his office ending in 3, 2, 1 and the President began to speak to the nation. I can go over what he said but odds are you saw show. He went on and on talking about all the important things going on over there and what it was we were doing. Even at one point saying it was time to turn the page. In a way in his speech, he did so himself. Turning the conversation from the war to the economy. He wrapped up his speech and went on about his business running the country. Afterwards, some news outlets, Republicans, and talking heads on talk radio started asking things like “why did the President feel the need to add the economy into his speech?” They started saying things like “that just shows how bad it is for the Democrats,” “the fact that he changed the topic shocked me,” and “the President continues to be out of touch with the American people.” The more and more I hear this the more it drives me crazy. I thought to myself, I work every day of my life. I get up, go in to work, clock in, and work my ass off for some CEO somewhere that I have never seen or heard from in my life. I think everyone would agree that being President of the United States of America is a very hard if the not the hardest job in the country. You mean to tell me that this man took 20 minutes out of his day to sit down and talk to me can somehow be turned into a bad thing? And it’s not the fact that he sat down and talked, it’s the fact that he changed the topic. If my CEO got on a closed circuit television and addressed our company he could talk about anything he wanted. The fact is I would want to hear what it is he had to say. Find out what was important to him. Just like I wanted to hear what Obama had to say. Every poll (if you put that much stock in them) says that the economy is the most important thing on the country’s mind right now and has been for a long time. The President gets on TV and talks about how he has “ended a war” that mind you someone else got us in and oh by the way, about the economy, and he takes a hit for that! You have got to be kidding me. They called it “strange,” “out of touch,” and “odd.” I think it’s odd to call someone “out of touch” who speaks on something everyone is talking about. “He did it in the wrong setting,” “this speech was supposed to be about the war only” as if the President can only talk about one issue at a time. We don’t always agree but hear me out Obama. If you talking to me about ending a war that no matter if I supported it or not, and at the same time want to mention the most important thing in my life is being “out of touch,” STAY OUT OF TOUCH!!

Islam and the (seemingly) popular American sentiment By Chad Stevens

One need only to scratch the surface of news headlines to see an alarming trend in what appears to be the popular perspective of many Americans. Articles and news stories questioning President Obama’s religious stance, the legitimacy of erecting a Muslim community center near Ground Zero and the stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver in New York have captured America’s attention these past few weeks. Of course, it’s easy to understand why. Since the events of September 11, 2001, widespread American sentiment has been cautious, at best, toward Islam and its followers. At worst, we’ve witnessed reactions such as that of Michael Enright, the man accused of attacking an NY taxi driver. Any logical individual would respond that counteracting hatred with hatred is a medieval idea, so the question remains: why do we (Americans, at large) continue to demonize, not just certain members of our society, but an entire community of individuals? Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, made an interesting observation is his recent NY Times post. Fish studied the rhetoric surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. He notes that prior to the arrest of Timothy McVeigh, speculation arose that focused on Islamic extremists as the responsible party, but “when it turned out that a white guy had done it, talk of ‘culture’ suddenly ceased and was replaced by the vocabulary and mantras of individualism.” Fish follows with an accurate but rather embarrassing observation: “The formula is simple: If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.” We cannot so easily forget the events of Sept. 11. Maybe building an Islam-based community center so close to the grounds of tragedy is hitting a little close to home. But the outcries and rhetoric encompassing such events present a very dangerous sentiment that supersedes caution and moves directly to outright hostility. By associating with a division of society, the individual must be aware that - good or bad - they adopt all stereotypes and associations that go along with their assumed affiliation. Now, simply because certain stereotypes may apply to a title does not mean that the individual MUST adhere to the expected words and actions of their group. Often, stereotypes exist because they were actually applicable at some point in time. However, the emphasis on individuality in our cultural is in direct conflict with our clichéd ideas of group representation. It seems as though Fish’s observations are correct: if we disagree with an action, we blame an affiliation, but if our agendas are the same as those held by the perpetrator, we tend to shift the guilt to the individual, not to the group they represent. Somewhere along the lines, so to speak, we seem to have forgotten that cultures, societies and religions are made up of individuals. Individual responsibility should remain supreme, regardless of group affiliations. Demonizing an entire community simply because we are unwilling to admit our own prejudice is unacceptable.

Thank A Democrat By LuAnne Walker-Leonard

The following is paraphrased from a website listed below.

It’s hard to argue that the Democratic Party doesn’t work to make our lives better in some way.
If you’re not a wealthy landowner and you vote, thank a Democrat.
If you’re a woman and you vote, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever voted while between the ages of 18 and 2, thank a Democrat.
If you never experienced racial segregation, thank a Democrat.
If you never had to take a literacy test or pay a poll tax to vote, thank a Democrat.
If you earn a fair wage, get paid overtime and/or was never subjected to child labor, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever received benefits through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, thank a Democrat.
If you or your child has ever benefited from Head Start or SCHIP, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever worked in a clean, safe workplace, thank a Democrat.
If you’ve ever missed work due to a serious illness, accident, or birth of a child (FMLA), thank a Democrat.
If you, your parents or your grandparents were helped by the G.I. Bill, thank a Democrat.
If you’re a woman who is paid as much as your male coworkers, thank a Democrat.
If you’ve never been discriminated against due to your age or physical disability, thank a Democrat.
If you enjoy clean air and water, thank a Democrat.
If you enjoy freedom and security, thank a Democrat- Monroe Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO( http://democrashield.com. 2010).

The good work of the Democratic Party will continue. Attacks against the party, lies, misleading ads, or angry rhetoric directed toward the party will not keep us from doing the only thing we know how to do: protect the interests of the American People.

This blog was posted by LuAnne Walker-Leonard, Precinct 18 at http://jcdp18.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/thank-a-democrat/