Government Policies in the Era of Senator Brown

The recent victory of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts is sure to send reverberations throughout the nation. It is almost implausible that a republican would defeat a democrat in Massachusetts however; this is what happened last Tuesday night. Even more astounding than Scott Brown's victory is that he, a conservative republican, will assume the seat in the Senate vacated by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the chambers of the US Senate. I'd be even more interested in the post Scott Brown victory message traffic between the White House, the Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House. So, who is this political tornado, Scott Brown? A quick look at his website (www.brownforussenate.com) clearly outlines his political philosophy. He believes in a financially strong and independent United States without a national debt that cannot be repaid. He feels that all Americans deserve health care however; he is against the current legislation and will vote against it. He supports free enterprise, lower taxes, common sense environmental policies, alternative energy development, charter schools, legal immigration, the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership, capital punishment, and adoption over abortion. He is against amnesty for illegal immigrants, civilian trials for illegal combatants, and he believes that the issue of gay marriage should be decided at the state rather than the federal level. He sounds like a conservative to me who just also happens to be a republican. I can still remember the day when we had conservative democrats. I wonder if Senator Sam Nunn knows where they are? Senator Brown's arrival in Washington D.C. will end the Democratic Party's stranglehold on the legislative branch of government and with mid term elections looming on the horizon, is sure to hand President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid with a whole new set of legislative conundrums.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News interviewed President Obama on January 20th. Scott Brown's upset victory led the interview into a pointed introspection of the President's policies and legislative ventures over the past year. A transcript of the interview is available at www.blogs.abcnews.com. In my view, two points during this interview reaffirmed my opinion of the President's inability to move from candidate to executive. At one point during his questioning, George Stephanopoulos says to the President, "But you're in charge, now." President Obama replies, "No--well--absolutely." This reply by our president clearly shows an inability to assume responsibility for his executive position. In the beginning of the interview the President attempts to rationalize how Scott Brown's election will transform his political landscape by drawing parallels between his and Brown's election. The President correctly points out that the electorate is angry but he mistakenly assumes that the nation's anger during the election of 2008 is identical to the anger that swept Scott Brown into the Senate. Yet again President Obama hides from assuming his executive mantel by stating, "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." Mr. President, I would like you to stand up from behind your desk in the oval office, take a deep breath and look around. Blaming George W. Bush obviously worked in 2008 but you sir, and you alone, are our nation's executive leader and casting blame elsewhere only makes you seem shallow and feeble. Incoming leaders analyze their new organization, develop estimates of its resources and manpower and establish new organizational mission, ethos, and long and short term goal statements. The authority to place into action new operational templates is then delegated to the appropriate branch leaders however; the responsibility for the success or failure of the organization lies solely in the hands of the executive. A successful executive never blames his failure on his predecessors.

President Obama clearly believes that government can provide the solution for all of our nation's ills. In his view, if you throw enough money at a problem or develop yet another governmental agency, you can fix just about anything. He is a big spender which is ironic since our current economy demands that all of us tighten our belts. You cannot spend your way out of debt. If you could, the credit card companies would willingly increase the credit limits of their customers even though they haven't received payment for current debts. Limited yet effective government backed by common sense legislation is the requisite foundation for a thriving republic. Our founding fathers inherently knew this and so did Ralph Waldo Emerson. In ESSAYS, SECOND SERIES (1844); Politics; Emerson wrote the following:

"Hence the less government we have the better,-the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man; of whom the existing government is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation."

Senator Scott Brown seems to be a believer of these principles. It shouldn't surprise any of us since Emerson was also from Massachusetts. Annoying though it might be, our republic thrives on the contrary juxtaposition of the two party system. This juxtaposition of differing political philosophies is naturally limited by the "checks and balances" written into our Constitution. Our nation suffers when a single party assumes total control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Emerson warned of this too:

"From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation."

Now that the Democratic Party has lost its filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they will hopefully have to sincerely work with the republicans in their attempts to roust our nation out of its economic doldrums. I would advise President Obama that from the outside looking in vantage point of my perch, he has, contrary to his campaign promises, indulged in an exclusive rather than inclusive presidency and legislative agenda. I would also advise Congress that their failure to work in a bi-partisan manner could lead to many of those up for reelection leaving office and looking for work elsewhere because last time I looked at the calendar it was 2010.

De Oppresso Liber

Healthcare, Government Style: Be Careful What You Wish For

Thus far, our nation has watched the inept party driven antics in Congress debate over nationalized health care with emotions ranging from boredom to anger. Regardless of which side of the argument you side with, none of us can be happy with the course of events in Washington D.C. Most of our citizenry are unaware of just what a centralized health care system would look like. Veterans make up less than 10% of our population and they are the only ones with any real world knowledge regarding the inadequacies of government health care. As a veteran, and a vociferous opponent of government run health care, I feel that it is necessary to describe my case and use it to illustrate just how inefficient government run health care truly is.

I retired from the US Army in May of 1999. During my last year of service I was diagnosed with service connected severe osteoarthritis and severe necrosis in both of my hip joints. The Army conducted a total hip replacement of my right hip and this necessitated that I retire from active duty since I could no longer conduct airborne operations and perform my duties as a Special Forces Non-Commissioned Officer. Upon retirement, I was evaluated by the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) and given a 50% disability rating. I received a rating of 30% for my artificial hip and 20% for the other hip. It took a Congressional Letter of Inquiry from my congressional representative to initially get me into the VA health care system. In 2004 I could no longer stand the pain in my left hip however; it took yet another Congressional Letter of Inquiry to get the VA to authorize a total hip replacement of my left hip. The VA contracted my surgery to a civilian orthopedic surgeon. This was fine with me but given today's debate, I do find it ironic that this decision was made because civilian care was more cost effective than government care. I've had only one pelvic x-ray and no examination by an orthopedic surgery since my surgery in 1999. Why? The answer is simple, the VA has no protocol for annual post surgery status diagnosis of prosthetic joints.

I have a VA clinic in my home town however, in order to see my primary care physician, I must call a VA hospital telephone service in Portland, Oregon to schedule an appointment at a clinic that is three miles from my house. If I need any treatment that cannot be taken care of at my local clinic I will usually have to wait between 3 and 6 months to see the specialist. Since 1999, I have had four primary care physicians at the same local VA clinic. The physicians have all left to enter private practice. On the other hand, since I have a private health care plan through my employer, I also have a civilian primary care physician and I've had her since 1999.

The personnel who staff the VA health care system are well meaning and do attempt to provide a quality health care experience for our veterans however; they are under staffed and under funded. So, I ask you, if veterans make up less than 10% of our total populace and the VA system remains ineffective, how can any form of nationalized health care that attempts to cover a population of over 300 million have any chance of success? We all can come to an agreement that health care costs are skyrocketing and that "something" needs to be done to rein in costs. That said, I will be the first to admit that I don't have an answer to the problem but, I also don't believe that a single political party should be deciding the course that we will take nor do I believe that we need to make a giant leap into the unknown. Small steps with constant cause and effect analysis are what are called for.

I would also like to see our nation enter into the deeply philosophic debate over whether or not health care is a basic human right and thus an inherent responsibility of government. I believe that it is not a human right but rather; it is an individual responsibility. If heath care is a human right, then why isn't sustenance or shelter also a basic human right? If the government has a responsibility to provide my healthcare, is it also the government's responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter me ? If we are, as I believe, "a nation of the people, and by the people", then why should I look to the government to provide me with what I should provide for myself? In the end, we must care for the destitute amongst us but, we must also nudge them forward towards self sustenance. Socialized nation states have proven themselves to be socio-economic failures and I see no reason for us to experiment at this time with such a stagnant socio-political view of mankind. At the end of the day, it is my responsibility to care for myself and my family members. I do not choose to hand over this control to anyone or any government entity at any time soon.

De Oppresso Liber