Saturday, March 27, 2010

Despite the Hype, Obamacare is Dead

By: Peter Egan

Obamacare is dead in the water. Yes, I said it and no, I'm not crazy.

Despite what you may have heard, Obamacare still has a long, long way to go before it ever manifests itself as a reality. In addition to the myriad of court challenges by individual states (which may or may not have valid points - I'm not a lawyer), Obamacare still must pass the test of voters this November, and the voters have the power to 'kill the bill', even if the courts don't.

As I predicted here on this site as well as on another site on a post entitled: Real Vote on Obamacare Takes Place this November, soon-to-be House Speaker Boehner has made clear that if Republicans regain a majority in the House of Representatives this November that Obamacare will not be funded.

Republicans will campaign on this issue, and will quite possibly eclipse the then-unprecedented sweep of 1994.

For anyone reading this that is unfamiliar with how the U.S. Government works, all budgetary matters (anything involving the spending of money, be it taxpayer funds, borrowed or printed money - for those of you in Rio Linda) must originate in the House of Representatives.

As explained previously on this site, whichever party controls that legislative chamber ultimately has the final say on whether or not Obamacare (Healthcare Reform, for those of you in Rio Linda) ever becomes a reality. If republicans are able to net at least 39 House seats this November, the chances are better than good that this Healthcare "Reform" is completely scrapped, most likely in favor of something that actually constitutes a reform and doesn't so much resemble a Chavez-style government takeover of yet another industry.

This so-called "healthcare" bill is not about healthcare at all, as Democrat Congressman John Dingell explained. It's about control. According to Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, the real purpose of the healthcare bill is to
"control the people". Bear in mind this is coming from a Democrat Congressman just days after Democrats passed a bill that every Republican and dozens of Democrats voted against in the name of "healthcare reform".

Yes, Dingell, Democrat from Michigan actually made the statement and there is plenty of audio to prove it.

The American people are not as stupid as the ruling party seems to believe, and this November my money says that they'll be thrown out of power in the House and lose a good bit of the Senate. Before all is said and done, the vast majority of voters will understand what this recent healthcare bill is really all about, and Democrats are going to pay the price for it for several elections to come.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Republicans Need a Leader Like Newt Gingrich Was in 1994

Author's Note: This post is a response to a comment made on a post on Mixx entitled: A History Lesson on Healthcare Reform... Remember 1994?

That was the title for the Mixx page for the recent Mainstream 180 post entitled: Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets.
The comment was a response to a remark from my friend Janejas, who had this to say:
@FatLester The difference is that there are more than 30 million Americans that will have healthcare this time.I do believe that they will have something to say about it in November too.
My response to his comment is as follows:

The people whom you are referring to (and that number is debatable) typically don't vote except during Presidential election years. Will they this time? If I'm a psychic the answer is "no".

Furthermore, as many as 50 million stand to lose existing healthcare coverage due to the incentives provided to employers to drop healthcare coverage and place their employees on the federal plan.

This certainly won't stand to help the Carteresque unemployment figures. I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he hasn't been deliberately destroying jobs to advance his healthcare reform measure.

The only thing that MAY save you guys this go around is the fact that the GOP has no real leader like they did in 1994. I respect Boehner, but he's no Newt Gingrich in terms of leading a movement.

I know the future Presidential candidates are all keeping a low profile until the 2012 election season nears, but someone within the GOP besides Rush, Mark Levin and Beck (read: someone in an elected position in either the House or Senate) must step up and assume a leadership role if the party is to be able to capitalize of the Dem's increasing unpopularity as was the case in '94.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a plethora of other House and Senate Democrats either have extremely short memories, or are completely inept in their political strategies being deployed in hopes of passing Obamacare, a complete federal takeover of the U.S. healthcare industry.

They are not the first Democrats to pursue such a strategy.  As I recall, in the early-to-mid 90's there was a similar dynamic in which the Democrats had control of the Presidency (William Jefferson Clinton); the Senate by a 56-44 margin (George Mitchell was MajorityKeader and Bob Dole Minority Leader); and the U.S. House of Representatives by a whopping 82 seat margin.

An Elephant Never Forgets...
Just two years later, the Republicans picked up a net 54-seat gain in the House, winning a landslide mid-term election that resulted in Newt Gingrich's ascension to the House Speaker position. An net gain of eight Senate seats left the GOP with the same advantage the Democrats had held going into the election: 56-44. Senator Dole (whose wife Senator Elizabeth Dole I have met) became the Majority Leader and Hillarycare was history... Until now.

Remember what the big issue-of-the-day was going into the '94 mid-term elections? I remember. It was the very same issue dominating all the headlines coming out of Capitol Hill today.

There was little if any substantive difference between the plan the former First Lady and current Senator wanted to take credit for when her husband (and I use that term loosely, no pun intended), and the one President Obama has staked his legacy on today.

My point is, let the Democrats pass the damned thing if they're that hell-bent on it. It will ensure we gain power back that much sooner - long before their healthcare bill will even begin to be implemented.

If 1994 was any indication of what will happen this coming November if Obamacare IS passed (considering Hillarycare never became law in the 90's), the GOP will not only win back majorities in both Chambers of Congress, but the prospect of obtaining a supermajority in one is not an unrealistic possibility. There could well be some party-swapping going on between October and December with less-radical Democrats defecting to the party in power.

Whether the bill gets passed or not, the Dems were voted enough rope to completely hang themselves with, and they've done everything within their capability to do just that.

The panic I see in the eyes of tea party-goers is good if it can be sustained until November. As long as American voters don't forget what happened throughout this past year, I'm quite comfortable with the GOP's electoral chances at winning back strong House and Senate majorities, effectively rendering Obama a lame-duck for the final two years of his Presidency (unlike Clinton, Obama's a one-term President).

Monday, March 15, 2010

Tea Party Movement Should Not Field Candidates in Elections

Tea Party: Good as a Movement, Bad as a Political Party

The 'Tea Party' movement is a good thing as long as it doesn't attempt to become its own party, which would ensure the democrats a number of House and Senate seats they would otherwise not have.

How could this be? Well, think about it. The mere presence of a 'Tea Party Candidate' on a ballot would do little other than siphon votes away from the Republican candidate.

Let's face it, that 3-10% of votes that candidate would receive in an election such as Nevada's Senate race are all going to come from voters who would otherwise vote Republican. Few if any would otherwise vote for the Democrat in the race. That means that the presence of a 'Tea Party Candidate' would serve to advance the Democrats' stronghold on power.

While I do not disagree that the Republican Party is in need of some reform, and that the RINO's need be shown the door, the GOP is still a far better alternative than a Democrat winning a given House or Senate seat.

Teaching the Republicans 'a lesson they'll never forget' by supporting a Tea Party Candidate is not worth the consequence - failure for the GOP to seize on or both Houses of Congress as a check on President Obama's power.

If the Tea Party really wants to make an impact, it will attempt to revive the 'Green Party' and encourage it to field candidates in major House and Senate races, and especially the 2012 Presidential contest. Now that might actually help serve to advance the actual agenda behind the Tea Party movement.