Go to my new blog at ThePointNews.com.
With the healthcare debate raging I thought I would address the fundamental flaw that I see in the right’s approach to reform. The argument is that choice will solve all of our problems. If consumers just have the choice of what procedure or medicine to get or what doctor to see, then all will be fixed. For the consumer choice model to bring down costs and ensure quality, healthcare has to be a market commodity.
There is a joke making the rounds in the business and economic worlds that goes like this: If the US government can fire CEO’s of companies who took bailout money then China should be able to fire President Obama.
The punch line comes of course from the fact that China has loaned a huge amount of money to the United States over the past 10 years. In fact, they apparently have so much of our debt that people have begun to talk about how China should have a say in how the US is run.
So, with all of this concern over our debt, I felt like it was time to do a little post dispelling a few common assumptions about our debt. The first is who is the main holder of US debt.
As a new writer on the blog the Political College Student, I thought I’d first talk about my philosophical political background. I am a life-long Nebraskan and am from a state in which politics operates much differently than the other states in the Union.
Many aspects of our political system besides the legislature set Nebraska apart from other states, including the way we elect our delegates for President. Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate Electoral College votes on a representative basis, two votes overall go towards the state winner and then each congressional district has a separate vote (two in Maine, three in Nebraska). This year, for the first time in half a century, Nebraska gave an electoral vote to a Democrat. It may be just one vote, but that little vote completely changes the way Nebraska voters think about their state.
In these unsettling times, Americans fail to take counsel as we once did in one another. No longer can we embrace our political differences as a source of strength, for the time of cooperation and deliberation has passed into the shadow of obscurity, and the flame of partisan conflagration. Americans everywhere clamor and cry that Congress is inefficient and ineffective; yet it was built by design to act as so. To sacrifice democratic debate for expediency’s sake, may lead to rash decisions; and hastiness could lead to unrest and decadence. Yet hope remains, for there are the few that wish to acknowledge the value of difference and disagreement, but at the same time embrace with open arms, compromise and fellowship.
I had an interesting American Politics class today where my Professor defended pork. Certainly the argument that it’s pork that is bankrupting our country or that it’s because of pork that we have a huge national debt and a growing defect is a bit debunked. Pork represents less than 1 percent of our annual budget, some $17.2 billion dollars, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
So let’s accept that we can afford some pork. My professor would argue that not only can we afford to spend $188,000 the Lobster Institute in Maine we should because it’s good for the country. He says, lobsters are important, it’s a big industry on the east coast. Research into lobsters are good for the US economy.
Rep Waters, D-Calif., Rep King, R-N.Y., Sen Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen Graham, R-S.C. debate the stimulus on
While watching the Sunday morning shows this morning, I honestly could not believe what I was seeing when when Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and Republican Representative Peter Kin said that Geinther should not take the option of nationalizing the entire banking system off the table. More from the Huffington Post.
What’s more is Senator Chuck Schumer (D) said that was a terrible idea and that the government cannot handle a task like that.
The Senate passed a modified version of the stimulus package that the House passed more than a week ago. The House bill passed with no Republican support and the Senate bill passed with just 3 Republicans voting in favor.
Republicans have been fighting this bill from it’s inception. They claim that only tax cuts not spending can help our economy. They are calling the democrats “reckless” and “irresponsible.” So, here is my question:
What words would you use to describe the Republicans over the past 8 years?
Senator McCaskill of Missouri
CNN called it putting a “cap in their assets” as they discussed Senator McCaskill’s proposed bill that would limit CEO pay for those companies who have received money from the Troubled Asset and Relief Program.
Not unexpectedly, Republicans are not thrilled. Former Mayor of New York and Presidential Candidate, Rudy Giuliani, said that, “putting a limit on CEO pay would take money out of the economy.”
It’s a theory that has been repeated over and over in the past as Republicans defend the theory of trickle down economics.
Sixteen years ago, right after President Clinton was elected he put his wife, Hilary Clinton, in charge of bringing universal health care to the United States. Very few industrialized countries do not guarantee healthcare to it’s citizens.
So, if we accept that we need universial healthcare, how do we do it?
One option is to just required everyone to have health care. Although we tried that in Massachusetts and it has been a complete and utter failure. It’s great to require it but unless you support such legislation with affordable health care options, nothing really changes. Not to mention we put penalties on businesses who have employees without health insurance even if the business offers it and the employee simply refused to take it.
Since there does not seem to be much going on in the world today, you know, except for a world wide financial collapse leading to the loss of some 43,000 jobs, I figured I would talk about the constitutional argument against tolls.
This comes up because today in one of my classes we were talking about the constitution and a question came up about article one, section 10, paragraph two, which of course states:
