The Path Forward For Republicans.



The Path Forward For Republicans.  I have been fascinated by all the talking heads rendering their opinions on “who won and who lost” in this recent CR and debt limit struggle; which by the way is not yet completed.  Frankly, I think it a regrettable indictment of the media that we are discussing the issue in these terms and not in the true substance of the arguments.  It is simply just another indication that the media is as shallow as our politicians.

To me, the way forward for the Republicans is very clear.  There is nothing to regret about allowing the diverse elements of your party to have their say; even when it unwise to say it.  True democracy and debate demands that various views are aired in their entirety before any final decision is made; and the very conservative members of the House and Senate who are so adamantly opposed to Obamacare pursued a path they selected based on principle (giving them the benefit of a doubt).  But now, having had the debate and confrontation, it is time to develop a game plan that has a reasonable expectation of bearing some type of substantial benefit.  For that to happen, I believe the Republicans in the both the House and Senate should pursue the following strategy:

·        You do not have the votes to undo Obamacare.  This is reality.  Let it self-destruct.  Do not aid in patching it up with band-aid and scotch tape legislation.  Allow it to fail and then, when that is obvious to all involved, come together with reasonable Democrats and pass a bill that will morph it into what it should have been to start with.  Republicans must accept that Obamacare was passed and cannot be rescinded in whole.  Democrats must accept that Obamacare, as passed, was a train wreck and has to be gutted in order to make it workable.  This is the ultimate win/win in the health care debate.

·        Do your jobs and pass appropriations bills prior to the fiscal year in which they apply.  There is simply no excuse not to do the primary job for which U.S. Senators and Representatives are elected to do.  For the current CR, that means a half-ass bundle job that simply plugs a hole.  For the future, just…do…your…job.  Using a term the Democrats are fond of, the sequester is now “settled law” and we should just let it do its work.  It is a modest step in the right direction.

·        The debt ceiling should not be raised to accommodate additional national debt.  Any increase in that ceiling must be accompanied by appropriate language that will address, at a minimum, an equal reduction in federal spending as compared to the increase. 

·        These three issues should be the foreseeable future agenda for the Republican Party.  They control the House; that is one of three votes.  There are times when they have leverage (debt ceiling) and times when they do not (CR); they really do need to come to terms with recognizing those times.  This nation elected Obama in a swoon.  This nation re-elected Obama out of ignorance.  This nation deserves what it is getting.  Get out of this administration’s way and let it demonstrate, once and for all, to the American public what ruin liberal policy can wreak on our country.  Once that realization becomes mature, be ready with a plan to pick up the pieces and begin to set things right.

Three Steps Towards Sanity.



Three Steps Towards Sanity.  Lord knows there are plenty of experts giving the Republicans advice these days; not to mention an undisclosed number of therapists.   It is rather pointless to discuss what the wisest pre-negotiating position would be when negotiations have matured well towards a deadline; whatever the merits of principle involved, it is now time to fish and stop cutting bait.  Negotiating strategy for the future has a place at the table, but the clock is running down and it is time to execute, not game plan.

Here is one simple man’s idea about how the Republicans (BOTH House and Senate, not option A or option B) should handle this end game on CR and debt ceiling:

1.     The Democrats passed Obamacare on a party line vote.  They passed it using extraordinary procedures.  They had no inkling what was in it and many Democrats are now deeply alarmed at the reality it is revealing.  The administration has played fast and loose with its implementation strategy, handing out exemptions like candy at Halloween.  Obamacare is doomed to failure because of its fundamental logic; let it self destruct.  I do not believe it is sustainable in its true form and substance.  Now sincere legislators will argue that it is their sworn duty to try and correct bad law and that is true.  But a friend once told me that sometimes a train must run completely off the tracks before everyone realizes the train needs to be fixed.  I think we have reached that point with this health care law. Pass a short term CR with adequate time to pass the necessary appropriations bills and above all, adhere to the afore-approved sequester cuts.  They are significant, they represent modest progress in the budget process, and they are as much settled law as Obamacare.  Stop trying to defund Obamacare or revise it in the appropriations process.

2.     There is truly something morally wrong when a law is passed and the folks passing the law exempt themselves and selected others from the law; especially when it is controversial to begin with.  In the CR action, as many exemptions as possible should be removed.  This is a position that is defensible, winnable, and can be easily understood.  In order for voters to realize how truly bad this law is. it needs to be implemented in its original form.  This “cut and paste” implementation philosophy being exercised by the administration is questionable in legitimacy and can go forever, effectively masking just how stupid the original law is.  It was passed; put it out there the way it was passed and let the chips fall.

3.     There is one argument that the public understands and supports in this debt ceiling discussion; that is “one dollar cut for one dollar increase”.  Now we all know that a cut in WDC is not a cut in our hometown, but that is another issue.  This argument is sound in principle, is easily argued, and actually makes some good sense.  Try to slow down spending with the appropriations process; using the debt ceiling to put some meaning in word “ceiling”.

Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid.



Be Afraid; Be Very Afraid.  I have wondered on several occasions since last November exactly what it is that motivates our president to do some of the things that he does.  He is clearly childishly petulant sometimes, reacting without thinking in ways that are spiteful and sophomoric.  This is his true nature and he does these things in a natural way without thinking.  But beyond those moments of infantile behavior, why does he continue to play political brinksmanship games with the Republicans?  It would seem that a man who is no longer going to stand for election would be far more interested in his legacy and getting something substantial in a bipartisan sense accomplished than in winning small battles with the opposition party.

There is only one answer that makes any sense whatsoever.  Everything that Obama does is targeted towards one thing.  If nothing else, he and his minions have the ability to bring a laser type focus on something when they are properly motivated; look no further than their masterful job at getting re-elected.  So, what might it be that is drawing their laser focus at this time?  The only explanation for his inexplicably confrontational and partisan activity is that he is wholly consumed by the 2014 mid-term elections; the goal of holding the Senate and wresting control of the House.  With that objective in hand, he and Reid and Pelosi can begin the completion of the vision they had only begun with the passage of Obamacare.

Whether you be a Republican, an Independent, a Libertarian, a Democrat, or a non-party citizen who votes for the candidate regardless, think about what “Obama unleashed” would be like.  Consider all of his community organizer and activist activities that have come to light since his election.  Consider how his foreign policy has sought to transform  not only the posture of our nation as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy, but also his shift away from historic allies to a naïve friendship extended to some of the most dangerous governments and organizations in the world today.  Look at how the economy has performed since his election.  Look at how our society and culture has changed since his election.  Consider how your life and the lives of your family members have changed since his election.  Consider how your views and dreams of your future have changed since his election.  Do you feel a sense of pride when he stands behind the podium, beneath the presidential seal, glancing towards his ever-present teleprompter, and dishing forth his meaningless partisan pap about how everything that is bad is someone else’s fault and has nothing to do with him?  Is Russia impressed with him or laughing at him?  Has he reassured Israel or forced them to consider radical autonomous actions to insure their own survival? 

If the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in 2014 and take control of the House, and then continue to be lapdogs for Obama and his activist agenda for America, how much damage can they manage in the two years left to them with unfettered control of our government?  This dream of transformation is what drives our president on a daily basis.   All he does, all he says, and all he plans is performed with the 2014 mid-terms foremost in his mind.  Want a preview of what could happen if their dreams come true?  Look no further than what happened the last time they had control of all three elected offices of government; Obamacare.

Words Of Wisdom From JCM.



Words Of Wisdom From JCM.  Johnny Cougar sang…”I need a lover that won’t drive me crazy”.  Listening to Jon Stewart the other day, it occurred to me that this is pretty much what is going on in WDC these days.  Stewart, while criticizing the Obamacare rollout to Sebelius, referred to the Republicans as “crazies”.  It is not uncommon to hear conservative-leaning journalists refer to Democrats in a similar fashion.  But the reality is that this is pretty close to the bone.  The old saying about…”He might be a devil, but he’s our devil” is pretty much in vogue.  There is an abundance of blind loyalty to extreme principles by moderate folks that is feeding the polarizing environment we see in our government.

This is especially true for Democrats; only because they control the White House and their leader is so definite and visible.  Of all the things we need in our government these days, highest on that list is the courage for some prominent Democrat to step up and disagree with the gamesmanship of the Obama administration.  That is not to say the Republicans aren’t engaging in gamesmanship themselves.  The simple fact is that they have a good deal of dissension in the ranks and no clear-cut national leader with which to disagree.

We need a Democrat that won’t drive the Republicans crazy and a Republican that won’t drive the Democrats crazy.  I’m not talking about a RINO or a Blue Dog; I’m talking about someone who wears their party brand clearly and is recognized as true blue; someone whose dissension would be significant and bring into question the wisdom of the leader’s message.  So far, Reid and Pelosi have managed to prevent the appearance of such a Democrat.  Mr. Boehner would likely say he could do with a few less of them.  Here’s hoping that one will soon appear in the U.S. Senate and we can get down to the serious and necessary business of running this government.

The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.



The Fundamental Problem With Obamacare.  There are good arguments on both sides of the Obamacare issue.  There are good intentions and motives that go both pro and con.  There is sound, fundamental logic that supports it and contradicts it.  Having said all of this, there is one fundamental problem with Obamacare…but we will save it for last.

Who amongst us hasn’t wondered at some point in our life….”In such a marvelous country, it is a crime that anyone should go without basic health care”.  We have wondered this when seeing a child in obvious poor health.  We have wondered this when seeing an elderly person making difficult economic decisions in order to balance health concerns with living needs.  It is a fact that a large, significant number of people in our society do not have adequate health care.  It is also a fact that both Democrats and Republicans agreed on this.  They probably agreed on two-thirds to three-fourths of the Affordable Care Act, but that is not the issue.

Social Security is a program that garners universal support.  It is a ponzi scheme, depending on the fees of new entrants in order to finance the benefits of existing members.  But the fact that it is a ponzi scheme doesn’t mean it cannot work.  As long as it is tweaked periodically with revisions to insure that it remains fiscally sound (eligibility age adjustments, etc.), it should continue to service our retirees for generations to come.  Unlike Social Security, Obamacare is a zero-sum game.  An insurance provider must be able to pay its indemnities, service its debt and administrative expenses, and make a profit for its owners in order to stay in business.  If you mandate what and who the provider must cover, then they will adjust their premiums accordingly.  If those least likely to draw indemnities do not enroll, those most likely to draw indemnities will not be able to afford the coverage.  This is the crux of Obamacare and the reason that the mandate is at the center of the ongoing storm.  Without the mandate, without the legal requirement for all adults to carry a policy, the premise will not float.  The non-indemnity folks must provide the profit necessary to carry the indemnity-receiving folks.  This is how it must be.  The Democrats, led by our president, say that health insurance is a fundamental right and it is therefore proper for our government to mandate participation in Obamacare.  The Supreme Court surprisingly supported this notion.  The Republicans say that health maintenance should be provided to all, but that the free market should determine the availability, the cost, and the level of that maintenance.  Both sides agree that health coverage is essential; they disagree on how people should obtain it.  Republicans see health insurance as a privilege that is earned and should be provided to those clearly unable to obtain it in a measured fashion.  Democrats see health insurance as a fundamental right that should be provided to all regardless of their ability to obtain it, and that the areas covered should be uniform to all, regardless of the coverage level.

Both sides see the problem: too many people with inadequate health care.  They agreed on 75 percent of the solution.  Now comes the problem; the sticking point with this whole mess; the gravel sticking in the craw of the Republicans and many others opposed to Obamacare.  No law or regulation, no matter how wise or well-intentioned, should be promulgated into law without some degree of bi-partisan support in our legislative process.  No law in the history of our nation with the sweeping nature of Obamacare has ever passed through Congress and been signed by the President without some support from both of our national parties.  When Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama schemed and devised an abnormal fashion in which to foist Obamacare on America, they did so on a strict party-line basis with not one single Republican vote.  They could have passed the bulk of the law with bi-partisan support.  They could likely have obtained a good portion of the remainder through honest negotiations. 

So whether or not you agree with the effort to defund Obamacare, you must understand how Obamacare came to be.  To call it “settled law” in any traditional sense is a stretch of reality.  When you force a law into play using extraordinary means, you must be prepared to defend it against extraordinary challenges.  I do not agree with the defunding option pursued by the House, but I can certainly understand why they have taken that approach.  The chickens have come home to roost.

The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.



The Insidiousness Of Partisanship.  Webster’s opinion aside, I have thought the term insidious described not only something vile and evil, but also something that had a creeping and worsening nature about it; something that might be festering at an alarming rate below the surface in such a way that nobody really notices until it is too late.  I think this accurately describes the current state of partisanship in our government.

Now I want to acknowledge up front that intense partisanship is a necessary evil for that core of party leadership that helps to insure the continuance of the two-party system in our nation.  While I am open, now more than ever, to entertaining the thought of a third national party (Libertarian?), the two-party system is essential to our form of government and someone, somewhere in each party must make certain that the party continues.  That being said, let us draw a distinction to those party members who serve because of their belief in the general principles espoused by that party, both current and historical; those people who accept the premise that you can compromise on practice, but never on principle.   Some of these folks are elected while representing their party.   Some of these folks help with the administrative chores of party continuance such as fundraising and membership drives.  Some of these folks are simply common citizens who choose to reflect their personal civic beliefs through party membership.  These people, who represent the overwhelming majority of each party, should not be expected to “toe the line” during every policy dispute.  They should not be expected to support a “win at all costs” strategy of no compromise and scorched earth.  They should not be expected to engage in the heated and “over the top” rhetoric commonly distributed by the party leaders.  Unfortunately, the line between these folks and the parties leaders has been blurred to point of irrelevance.  The parties leaders presume to speak for all members, while reflecting the hard-core attitudes that only they live, eat, and breathe.  Even more unfortunately, while many of the party members are disturbed by and disagree with this development, it has become accepted and de facto and the members are beat into submission, feeling helpless to change their party.  It has been coming for long time, at least since the early 90’s.  It has been promoted by the leaders of both parties.  It has been foisted in a sly and devious manner on party members who have been more concerned with the business of living and supporting their families.  It has poisoned our legislative capacity to the point where our government is literally dysfunctional.  It is insidious.   

This line must be re-established.  Party leaders must once again understand their primary functions end at a certain point and they must cede some of the authority they have gained through questionable methods back to the party members.  Once again, I emphasize that the elected officials of each party rightly belong in the category of member, not leader.   This allows them the latitude to actually debate in good faith, discuss with civility, and compromise with wisdom, while maintaining the general philosophy of the party.  The leaders must allow this to happen while doing their due diligence of party survivability behind the scenes.

Although both parties have been infected with this malady to a severe degree, I think it is a fair argument to say the Republicans have been beset a bit more than the Democrats.  I ascribe this almost totally to the basic nature of the party’s philosophies.  While the Republicans have a narrower and less adventurous vision of government that seems to somewhat restrict the conservative nature of their party, the bedrock tolerance preached by the Democrats presents their members with a naturally broader latitude for dissent and a greater cushion between continuing as a contrarian member and excommunication.  A Republican member can more readily identify an issue that might bring into question their membership because the view of government is smaller and less complex.  On the other hand, a Democrat member can likely find other party members who share their concerns about general party direction and it requires a bit more disgust with leadership to push them to a point where they consider the wisdom of their party loyalty.  Either way, it is clear that the fringe elements of each party’s leadership cadre has managed to wrest control of the party megaphone and dictate the primary policy positions over the last few years.  This is why I think there might be a window of opportunity for a third party.  Not if the new party simply copies the operating methods of the existing parties, but only if the new party is able to clearly define that “once clear and now blurred” line between the party leaders and the party members.

My Vote: Stick To Your Guns.



My Vote: Stick To Your Guns.  Well, they shut it down.  Where do we go from here?  For this one, small, insignificant guy…I say to the House of Representatives: Stick to your guns. 

First off, it is entirely reasonable to delay Obamacare; it is a colossal mess and given the length of time they’ve had to prepare for this rollout, the fact that it is so troubled is ominous indeed.  It was passed into law by extraordinary means by classifying it as a budget item.  It is only fitting that the first real challenge to it comes within the budget process.  Secondly, and as I have stated before in this little blog, our best government is sometimes is our least government.  For my money, we can stand some time with the bureaucracy frozen in time.  It has obviously become dysfunctional and there is apparently nobody in town who has any notion whatsoever of how to fix it.  Instead of letting it continue to tumble out of control, let’s put it on hold for bit; stop it in its tracks and see if that doesn’t provide some perspective on how to repair it.   

As usual, the mainstream media is carrying the administration’s water on this whole deal.  While there is plenty of blame to go around, all the press wants to talk about is how the Republicans in the House are approaching this crisis.  Is there no blame to be placed on a Senate who tells its co-equal partner in legislation: My way or the highway?  Ultimately, as Woodward has said, the blame rests with our president.  For better or worse, he is the leader of this nation.  He has more executive control than any president in recent memory and he has party control of the Senate; how can he not be held accountable for this fiasco?

For my money, the only real tragedy in this shutdown is the possibility that some of our good federal workers and military service members will not receive the paychecks that they rely on.  It is not their fault that we have elected incompetents in WDC who behave more like petulant children rather than statesmen.  They, like all other working people in this pitiful economy, live from paycheck to paycheck and when one comes up missing in part or in whole, it quickly puts a family’s economy in crisis.