Response to the Positive Power of saying "No"

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.