Political Obfuscation

The SCHIP reauthorization vote just went down, with the House failing to get the supermajority needed to override the President's veto.

This issue is a perfect example of political obfuscation and misinformation.

To hear the Dems tell the story, you would have to believe that a heartless President Bush wants children to go without healthcare. Advertisements and floor speeches sponsored by Democrats shamelessly and falsely state that the President refuses to reauthorize a program that guarantees healthcare to millions of low-income children.

If you don't know this already, you may be shocked to discover the truth of this particular issue.

SCHIP is a program designed to help states provide health insurance coverage for people near the poverty line. It hasn't gone away, and in fact is still in force. Nobody has seriously proposed ending the program. (It's actually unconstitutional, but Congress hasn't cared about that since FDR.)

What really happened is this: The Democrats decided to substantially expand the program to provide coverage up through the middle class. Pardon me for not recalling the exact numbers, but it would provide government health insurance for families with annual earnings in the $60's. New York asked for an exception that would cover families into the upper $80's.

Therefore, the President pulled out his veto stamp.

Republicans ascribe special political motives to the Democrats for passing this bill, and the evidence seems to back them up: The Dems wanted to create a campaign issue for 2008 by pushing a socialized medicine program they knew Republicans wouldn't like. Now with the veto they can demagogue this issue with even greater gusto in their attempt to convince those who don't pay attention that they care about people with healthcare problems, while the Republicans don't.

Now I, for one, think the Republicans have done a horrible job in not taking the lead in addressing the healthcare issue in general. Aside from a few platitudes about health savings accounts, they have failed to even communicate that they understand the major problems that exist with the healthcare system today. That makes them easy targets for Democrats, who now can get people saying, "at least they're trying to do something about the problem!".

Clearly, the Democrat party desires socialized government healthcare, and this bill was a major step in that direction. Instead of allowing them to achieve their goals through obfuscation, why don't we just have the national conversation to answer this key question:

Do the American People want the Federal Government in charge of healthcare? Are we ready to give up our freedoms - to pick our doctors and hospitals and make our own decisions about what treatments we need - in return for government control and higher taxes?

In my individual situation as a small business owner, I suspect that the increase in my taxes will probably be offset by its elimination of the exhorbitant amount I have to pay for my family's health insurance. But cost isn't the only factor; quality, accessibility, and freedom are much more important.

And when the Democrats succeed with their socialized medicine agenda (and I think it's just a matter of time before they do), we'll all suffer for it. Healthcare access will become a nightmare, quality of care will suffer, and we will lose our freedom to choose our own physicians and treatments. Just ask a senior who signed up for the Medicare Prescription Drug program and found out they couldn't get the medicines they needed because of the bureaucracy suddenly inserting themselves between them and their doctors.

It troubles me that most people don't seem to understand these simple truths.

Finding a Candidate

The GOP president contenders have a front-runner in Rudy Giuliani, but the actual candidate is far from settled.

The Democrat side is all but settled. I will be shocked if the ticket of Hillary/Obama isn't set in stone very early in 2008. If there was a Democrat who had broad appeal with a message substantially different from the rest of the pack, he (or she) could get enough people excited to beat Hillary's machine. But there isn't anybody.

So give the fact I will never, not even with a gun to my head, vote for Hillary, all I have left are the Republicans.

But none of them measure up. At least not yet.

Rudy cleaned up New York City and was a visible and seemingly effective leader during the crisis of 9/11. He's saying the right things about National Defense. But he's suspect on taxes. And he's way off the reservation on social issues. Besides the fact he's an established skirt-chaser with a questionable moral history.

Mitt Romney is saying a lot of the right things and seems to be a competent executive. But he seems to be a political chameleon, so one never knows how seriously to take his positions. His Mormon faith isn't a problem for me, but I am concerned that there are lots of folks who won't vote for him just because of that. All else aside, when he talks he doesn't inspire me. I could vote for him against Hillary very easily, but would not be very happy about it.

Fred Thompson had everyone excited as he played coy about entering the race. But now that he's in, you can't really find anything that separates him from the rest of the pack. The weird thing is that he gives me the feeling he doesn't really want to be president. I can't tell what, if anything, he's passionate about.

John McCain is a guy that sometimes says things that make a lot of sense. Then he says something that doesn't. He angered lots of conservative voters with his leadership on the comprehensive immigration reform bill, most often alternately called the amnesty bill. It hurt his campaign, and although he's spending most of his time explaining himself on that issue, it may become the most important reason he doesn't win the nomination. McCain is a sort of moderate politician, which means I agree with him about 50 percent. Not enough to generate enthusiasm to pull his lever at the polls.

Of the rest, I seem to like Duncan Hunter the most. I probably agree with him on more issues than anybody else in the field. But nobody seems to even know he's running.

Mike Huckabee speaks well and seems like an honest, moral man. He's polling as the fourth most popular candidate, but doesn't seem likely to pull through. I'm a bit offended by his characterizations of people who feel the borders need to be secured and illegal immigrants dealt with as racists and bigots. But against most of the other guys, I might be willing to forgive.

Tom Tancredo is a one-trick-pony. All immigration all the time. I love his passion for the issue, but would like to hear more from him about other things.

Ron Paul won't win a nomination for president, but he will win Mayor of Crazytown hands-down. Every time he talks I get the uncomfortable feeling that maybe somebody should bundle him in a straightjacket and find him a padded room.

Where's my candidate? Not running for president, apparently.