Amidst the discussions in Washington over health care reform lurks the issue of abortion. Not much has been said lately about the issue. Many in Washington have been content to ignore the topic in the interest of moving the bill forward, most notably, President Obama. But the issue is there and it will have to be addressed sooner or later.
It will not be an easy issue to resolve. It cuts across both parties. It will not be enough to overcome Republican opposition to its inclusion. There are many Democrats that will have to be accommodated as well. Obama stated that he doesn't want to change the government's policy on abortion. If this is true, he is one of few in the nation.
Many politicians in Washington would just like the issue to go away. Life would be much easier if there was a way to simply tip toe around the issue. Life would be even better if it could be ignored. But it can't. It is a divisive topic that, after over 30 years, still stirs great debate and emotion. There is no indication that the the debate over abortion will go away. Obama is pleading with Democrats to overcome their division over the issue. He is on the threshold of history and he needs their support.
Obama has sought to reassure abortion rights supporters by telling them that his legislation will not change government policy. But that policy itself is one that has done little if anything to soften the debate. Indeed, it has often contributed to it. He has also sought to appease anti-abortion groups through assurances that national health care will not wind up funding abortions. They have little reason to be assured. Self imposed restraints have proven to be flimsy bulwarks against government expansion. Pro-choice groups want reassurance that national health care will not infringe or encroach upon abortion rights that have been so long and desperately fought for. The passionate on both sides of the issue are vigilant and on the watch for appeasement. They do not get along and they are determined not to coexist. No matter what Obama or Congress does, they are going to antagonize one group or the other.
It is inevitable that when Obama has to choose, he will choose pro-choice over pro-life, as will most Democrats in Congress. They have to. Their political lives depend on it. The same is true for many Republicans. They will have to oppose extending coverage to include abortion if they hope to be reelected.
Conservatives have greater cause to be suspicious of Obama's assurances. Abortion rights have been extended relentlessly over the years. There is no reason to think that they are going to remain fixed, let alone retreat. A government that supports and funds abortion will be unlikely to long observe any self imposed restraint on the issue. Just because Obama promises not to include abortion coverage in the bill today does not mean someone will not do so tomorrow. Unless withholding funding from abortion is explicit in the bill, sooner or later the government will wind up funding it. You can count on that. There will be too much pressure not to do so.
Later this year, when Democrats hit the road for reelection, they will be relying upon an enthusiastic Democratic Party. If that party wants federal health care to cover abortion, its leaders will accommodate them. And, if they do so, they will be handing Republicans a campaign issue such as one they usually can only hope for. Abortion is still an open wound in American politics. National health care will assure that wound is picked at. As much as Speaker Pelosi might protest, the health care bill under consideration is not simply about "providing quality affordable health care for all Americans." Nothing Washington does is that simple. To say otherwise is disingenuous or naive. And Pelosi is not naive.
30 years after segregation was ended, no one was arguing that it should be reinstated. 30 years after women were given the right to vote, no one was arguing that their right to vote should be rescinded. 30 years after laws against intermarriage were found unconstitutional, no one was insisting that decision be overturned. Yet, over 30 years after abortion was deemed a right, a bitter debate continues. That should tell us a lot about the issue. Clearly there is something about abortion that grates on human nature.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
What?
In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Froma Harrop wrote an editorial in which she addressed the languor of the American consumer. Consumers have become more cautious. Investors have become more wary. Americans have become decidedly more hesitant to part with their money. They have become inclined to hold on to their money because they are uncertain about the future. As a result, the economy is suffering.
After a lengthy and informative discussion of the topic, Harrop concludes that the remedy for the economic torpor affecting the U.S. is the passage of national health care. Harrop's reasoning is that if the American people did not have to worry about obtaining or keeping health insurance, their mood would improve and they would go out and boost the economy by spending their money on new dresses and tool boxes and taking the family to Disneyland. There may be something to this. Harrop just might be on to something. But why stop at health care? If people did not have to fret over auto insurance, they would be more apt to spend money in ways more productive to the economy. They could buy new shoes or take a day at the spa. If they did not have to worry about paying rent or mortgages, their delight would only increase and they would spend even more money fueling the economy by purchasing flat screen televisions and new lawnmowers. One can only marvel at the economic wonders that would occur if the American people did not have to concern themselves with paying their bills and taking care of themselves.
It is doubtlessly true that most Americans, if they did not have to spend their money on health insurance, or hoard it in trepidation, would spend it on something. National health care would go a long way towards lifting a burden from the public. Being released from burdens and obligations does much to improve one's spirits. Buoyed spirits would certainly be a benefit to the economy. Many would be happy if they woke up one morning and were told that their health care will now be taken care of. Perhaps they would go shopping to celebrate. But that happiness will be fleeting. Sooner or later the public will come into contact with that bureaucratic monster and feel its cost. Going hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt and creating a mammoth new federal bureaucracy is certainly a long way around to lifting public spirits.
So, according to Harrop, even if national health care does nothing to improve health care in the U.S., it is still a good program because as a "mood enhancer" it will encourage hesitant consumers. I can't help but suspect that there must be a better way to enhance the mood of the American consumer than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a health care program that many don't want and there is little consensus will work. Why not simply give that money back to the public? There are few things better to lift a consumer's spirit than getting a check in the mail. If nothing else, a few hundred billion dollars in the hands of consumers would certainly give the economy a boost.
After a lengthy and informative discussion of the topic, Harrop concludes that the remedy for the economic torpor affecting the U.S. is the passage of national health care. Harrop's reasoning is that if the American people did not have to worry about obtaining or keeping health insurance, their mood would improve and they would go out and boost the economy by spending their money on new dresses and tool boxes and taking the family to Disneyland. There may be something to this. Harrop just might be on to something. But why stop at health care? If people did not have to fret over auto insurance, they would be more apt to spend money in ways more productive to the economy. They could buy new shoes or take a day at the spa. If they did not have to worry about paying rent or mortgages, their delight would only increase and they would spend even more money fueling the economy by purchasing flat screen televisions and new lawnmowers. One can only marvel at the economic wonders that would occur if the American people did not have to concern themselves with paying their bills and taking care of themselves.
It is doubtlessly true that most Americans, if they did not have to spend their money on health insurance, or hoard it in trepidation, would spend it on something. National health care would go a long way towards lifting a burden from the public. Being released from burdens and obligations does much to improve one's spirits. Buoyed spirits would certainly be a benefit to the economy. Many would be happy if they woke up one morning and were told that their health care will now be taken care of. Perhaps they would go shopping to celebrate. But that happiness will be fleeting. Sooner or later the public will come into contact with that bureaucratic monster and feel its cost. Going hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt and creating a mammoth new federal bureaucracy is certainly a long way around to lifting public spirits.
So, according to Harrop, even if national health care does nothing to improve health care in the U.S., it is still a good program because as a "mood enhancer" it will encourage hesitant consumers. I can't help but suspect that there must be a better way to enhance the mood of the American consumer than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a health care program that many don't want and there is little consensus will work. Why not simply give that money back to the public? There are few things better to lift a consumer's spirit than getting a check in the mail. If nothing else, a few hundred billion dollars in the hands of consumers would certainly give the economy a boost.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
2nd Amendment
During oral arguments yesterday before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns, Justice Antonin Scalia stated in response to an argument before the court that "The right to keep and bear arms is right there...in the Bill of Rights." I checked. He is right. It is there.
Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms is not in the Eight Amendment, nor in the Fourth Amendment. It is in the Second Amendment; the amendment right after the one that grants us freedom of speech. Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was important to the Framers. So much so that they put it right near the top. If other Amendments can sometimes be stretched to the very limits of credulity, why cannot the Second Amendment be read to include what it states plainly?
Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms is not in the Eight Amendment, nor in the Fourth Amendment. It is in the Second Amendment; the amendment right after the one that grants us freedom of speech. Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was important to the Framers. So much so that they put it right near the top. If other Amendments can sometimes be stretched to the very limits of credulity, why cannot the Second Amendment be read to include what it states plainly?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Fly in the Ointment
Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky is single handedly blocking legislation to keep several government programs up and running. Among the things affected by Bunning's blockage are such things as extending unemployment benefits, worker furloughs, and the provision of highway funds. While the amount appropriated in the legislation is near infinitesimal by Washington standards, a mere $10 billion, the effects will be felt. Bunning's obstinacy lay in his insistence that the $10 billion appropriation bill actually be paid for rather than simply piled atop the massive federal deficit. One reason for Bunning's obstinacy is that he is not running for reelection. "If we can't find $10 billion to pay for it," said Bunning, "then we're not going to pay for anything." Unlike many in Washington, Bunning's decision not to seek reelection gives him the luxury of being responsible.
Bunning's stand is causing problems in Washington. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine lamented that there are 500 people in Maine whose benefits would expire as a result of Bunning's action. With due sympathy for those workers, I do not see how maintaining benefits for 500 unemployed workers in Maine is justification for supporting a $10 billion federal appropriations bill. The state of Maine sent $6.3 billion in federal taxes to Washington in 2007 alone. It wouldn't have taken very much of that to keep 500 people employed.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused Bunning of playing political games. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important projects around the country" he said in a statement. LaHood spoke as if "playing political games" was only limited to opposing legislation and did not include the practice of jumbling bills together to inhibit opposition. Despite the billions sloshing back and forth in Washington, money is tight. And, while the national debt swells and many programs and agencies are facing shortfalls and budget cuts, Obama insists on pushing a health care bill that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government does not have.
The state of California had $37.5 million in federal highway funds put on hold due to Bunning's action. The state of Virginia had $49.5 million put on hold. The state of California sent nearly $414 billion in tax receipts to Washington in 2007 (roughly $8,590 per person). The state of Virginia sent nearly $62 billion (roughly $8,000 per person). If only a small percentage of those federal tax receipts were left in the hands of those two states, social programs could be funded and very few roads would go unpaved. If only a portion of the taxes collected were left in the hands of the tax payers of those two states, their economies would be much better off and therefore far fewer workers would have been laid off. Those states could also spend that money on things they needed, such as extending unemployment benefits, improving education, and providing social services besides simply repairing roads and maintaining bridges. In short, they could spend that money on things they needed rather than on things Washington wanted. And therein lies the rub.
"I don't know how you negotiate with the irrational" said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking of Bunning. This presumes that spending billions of dollars one does not have is rational. When it comes to Bunning's maneuver, the administration and Congress are coming to sound like the customer who, while attempting to buy a new television suddenly has his credit card cut up and then laments "how will I feed my children?" The children are hungry, the roof is leaking, the porch needs repair, and the washer and dryer are broken. But Washington is still trying to buy a flat screen television.
Demanding that federal programs be paid for is not a game. Insisting the government spend only what it takes in is not irrational. It is just the opposite. Many in Washington are being irresponsible when they suggest that insisting on fiscal sobriety is a game. It is time someone stepped up and said no.
Bunning's stand is causing problems in Washington. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine lamented that there are 500 people in Maine whose benefits would expire as a result of Bunning's action. With due sympathy for those workers, I do not see how maintaining benefits for 500 unemployed workers in Maine is justification for supporting a $10 billion federal appropriations bill. The state of Maine sent $6.3 billion in federal taxes to Washington in 2007 alone. It wouldn't have taken very much of that to keep 500 people employed.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused Bunning of playing political games. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important projects around the country" he said in a statement. LaHood spoke as if "playing political games" was only limited to opposing legislation and did not include the practice of jumbling bills together to inhibit opposition. Despite the billions sloshing back and forth in Washington, money is tight. And, while the national debt swells and many programs and agencies are facing shortfalls and budget cuts, Obama insists on pushing a health care bill that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government does not have.
The state of California had $37.5 million in federal highway funds put on hold due to Bunning's action. The state of Virginia had $49.5 million put on hold. The state of California sent nearly $414 billion in tax receipts to Washington in 2007 (roughly $8,590 per person). The state of Virginia sent nearly $62 billion (roughly $8,000 per person). If only a small percentage of those federal tax receipts were left in the hands of those two states, social programs could be funded and very few roads would go unpaved. If only a portion of the taxes collected were left in the hands of the tax payers of those two states, their economies would be much better off and therefore far fewer workers would have been laid off. Those states could also spend that money on things they needed, such as extending unemployment benefits, improving education, and providing social services besides simply repairing roads and maintaining bridges. In short, they could spend that money on things they needed rather than on things Washington wanted. And therein lies the rub.
"I don't know how you negotiate with the irrational" said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking of Bunning. This presumes that spending billions of dollars one does not have is rational. When it comes to Bunning's maneuver, the administration and Congress are coming to sound like the customer who, while attempting to buy a new television suddenly has his credit card cut up and then laments "how will I feed my children?" The children are hungry, the roof is leaking, the porch needs repair, and the washer and dryer are broken. But Washington is still trying to buy a flat screen television.
Demanding that federal programs be paid for is not a game. Insisting the government spend only what it takes in is not irrational. It is just the opposite. Many in Washington are being irresponsible when they suggest that insisting on fiscal sobriety is a game. It is time someone stepped up and said no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)