I enjoy reading, “Just One Guy’s Opinion” column if for no other reason than it stirs my blood. Now and then though, a comment is required. In the column, “The Positive Power of saying ‘No’,” there are some assumptions I disagree with.
First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.
Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”
Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.
Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.
That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.
This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Who Can Provide us with Greater National Security
Before we get too far into this year’s election rhetoric and people begin taking positions on where they stand on candidates and issues, I would like to address an issue of primary importance. The Republican Party appears poised to push the theme that they are the party that can provide the American people with the best national security. For the life of me, I can’t understand why they think the American electorate will buy into this.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.
Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.
The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.
The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.
Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.
Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.
Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
