The Republicans vs. The Tea Party

Joe Biden told Politico.com "I mean this in a literal sense -- it's going to sound partisan, but I mean it literally: I know what the Republicans are against. I have no notion of what they're for." This would have been funnier and just as true if it had been said by RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Over the past sixteen months the Republicans have done little but complain and obstruct. Now with the national rise of the Tea Party and their candidates, the right wing doesn’t even know what their ideology/talking points are. The Republican Party is desperately trying to engulf Tea Party movement and their energized voters, but at the same time they are trying to calm down and mold Tea Party favorites into more voter friendly, run-of-the-mill Republicans. The reason is obvious; Tea Party candidates are not mainstream enough to win a national election and Republicans know it.

Kentucky: Rand Paul (R) is facing off against Jack Conway (D) to replace retiring Senator Jim Bunning (R). Rand Paul, son of libertarian icon Ron Paul, smashed the establishment Republican in the primary and showed an early lead against Jack Conway in the general election. However, the more the nation learns about Rand Paul the further his numbers slip in Kentucky. Paul and Conway are now in a statistical dead-heat. Paul has very far right libertarian views on affirmative action, Social Security, Department of Education and other major issues that conflict even with conservative talking points. Paul’s presentation of his ideas has attracted national attention and he has become a male Michele Bachmann/Sarah Palin; a hyper-polarizing figure. Unless the Republican party can get Rand Paul to tone down his ideology (at least superficially) he is going to have to spend the next five months fending off attacks and hiding out as he did when he had to cancel his appearance on “Meet the Press” due to his comments on segregation. Rand Paul has too much national baggage now and I predict a major upset in a very red state. Jack Conway (D) by 5 points.

Nevada: This is going to be a very similar race for similar reasons. The Republican running is bat-s!@t crazy Sharron Angle (R), another Tea Party favorite. She will be taking on Harry Reid (D), the current Senate Majority Leader who is bat-s!@t boring. Angle is another far right candidate who is eventually going to scare off Nevada voters. She as well wants to get rid of Social Security and the Department of Education and Energy along with other far right desires. This was acceptable during the primaries but now, by Republican Party pressure, she has revamped her website and toned the extremism down. Harry Reid has even put out her old campaign website to Nevada how out of sync she is with average voters. Harry Reid has abysmal polling numbers but a lot of cash. It would be a mistake to write him off just because of voter angst and poor approval numbers. He has to be one of the most boring and lackluster members in Congress, but don’t forget, he has been winning elections since 1969! He is one hell of a campaigner and knows how to win elections. I predict an unexpected blowout: Harry Reid (D) by 10 points.

Nikki Haley (R) will handedly win the election to be the next Governor of South Carolina. She was a Tea Party favorite with the backing of almost all national conservative figures including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Governor races are not national issues though. Despite the stories of her alleged affairs, the nation still didn’t really care who she was or what her policies were. Senate races are different. There are only 100 Senators and they are easier to put a name and face to in all areas of the country; plus their votes have more of a direct impact on the nation than state office candidates which raises their relevance outside of their respective state.

Tea Party favorites like Paul and Angle are attracting lots of media attention which is not turning out well for the Tea Party and the Republicans. It is turning national mainstream Republicans off of Tea Party ideals and helps Democrats raise funds. Republicans are so uncomfortable with many Tea Party candidate stances that they have to muzzle them or bribe/threaten them with purse strings. Kentucky and Nevada should have been easy wins, not to mention necessary for the Republican Party to regain control of the Senate. If the Tea Party ideology/candidates cost the Republicans two easy wins in the US Senate, we are going to see the Republicans begin to distance themselves from the movement and let the Tea Party fizzle out.

The Great Compromise

Rand Paul is a die-hard constitutionalist ready to take on the difficult job of cutting the government’s size and spending habits. Libertarians are slowly becoming more and more prominent in American politics with the rise of the Tea Parties and the successful campaigning and strong followings of the father and son combo, Ron and Rand. Rand Paul has shown himself to stick to his beliefs no matter what, which many see as a refreshing trait for a politician. After his victory in the Kentucky primaries, he stated on The Rachel Maddow Show that if he were around in 1964 he would have questioned the constitutionality of the Federal government mandating private ownerships to desegregate. His point was, as libertarians believe, that the government has no right for any reason to regulate the free market. This is his first election so hopefully he is learning that if he is going to say inflammatory statements he needs to clarify them in the same breath. Many followers of libertarian ideas and political thinkers do not see Rand Paul’s comments as a sign that he is racist but as a testament to his undying faith in libertarian ideals. But the media doesn’t see that as a very fun story.

Some people (me), however; would view Rand Paul as the opposite of refreshing, but as a perfect model of all that is wrong in American politics today. Today’s politics is all about having the best sound bite on a cable channel and crying that everything your opponent says is not only wrong but will lead to the destruction of the country. All of this in the name of power. Politics is meant to be opposing parties compromising and working together for the greater good. I don’t believe that Rand Paul made his comments to be in the spotlight but I also don’t believe he subscribes to the idea that politics is about working together for the people. The Tea Party and their candidates like Rand Paul are uncompromising. It might be refreshing to some that they are so passionate about their beliefs and will defend them to no end, but we do not need more ideologues in Congress. If Rand Paul wins in November and the Republicans do not regain control of either the House or the Senate, he will be nothing but an obstructionist for at least two years, until 2012 when the Republicans will have another chance to regain power. Ideologues can only be effective when their party has the power. Can anyone see him actually compromising with a liberal on any issue when he cannot even concede that it was a good idea the Federal government intervened in private desegregation? With the Democrats in power and dictating what comes to the floor, Rand Paul is surely to vote no on everything. With one foot on the gas and the other on the brake, there is no progress. The country needs representatives able to not only present new ideas but also to be accepting of others' ideas. Rand Paul’s thoughts and ideas are extremely important for Congress to be exposed to. Diversity in ideas can only better our politics and policies; but if he is unwilling to listen, I doubt anyone will listen to him either.

What do you want?

The Republican Party completely confuses me. What do they want? I understand that in today’s hyperpartisan political environment, everything that one party does the other must decry as the beginning of the apocalypse. But attacking Obama has had some low points that seem to contradict Republican ideology.
During the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin was the first to attack Obama for being a community organizer, as if that was worse than abortion doctor and easier than a toll clerk on the highway. But isn’t community organization exactly what the Republican Party should be championing? Conservative ideology stresses that government should get out of the way and that the best way for social ills to be addressed is through personal responsibility and decentralized power/control. I understand (but don’t share) the skepticism of the federal government its role in improving the quality of life of its citizens. I understand (and do share) the belief that local governments and individuals can greatly influence and better the lives of the people. But with Sarah Palin’s bashing of community organizers and Rush Limbaugh’s tirade against Obama’s call for national community service day in honor of the 9/11 attacks, I just get confused on what Republicans want. Actually, I understand what they want; they want the Democrats and Obama to fail so Republicans can have the power back.
I refuse to believe that Republicans as a whole don’t really care about the lives and well being of the less fortunate but it seems they have this false ideology that they seem to not really support when the Democrats and Barack Obama promote the same thing. Republican ideology and rhetoric are falling out of sync. If Republicans believe in local and personal responsibility why do they not support the President when he calls for community involvement? Why do they not praise community organizations? It can be argued that community organizations, such as ACORN, can be used primarily to gain influence in the federal government. This could be true, but this is not what the President was calling for today. Obama simply calls on every American to think of other Americans and lift a hand to help, if only for a day. Isn’t that the Christian way? Isn’t that what Republicans should be all about? So far that has been an outcry against Obama’s promotion of community service by the right-wing media. There is not much being said about this by elected officials on the right (yet), but the question remains for everyone on the right to answer; if not the feds and not organized community groups, then who? Who?
Maybe Rush is just scared that if people start to realize that it can be very rewarding to help out those in need, that maybe this healthcare reform will pass. One of the most famous rhetorical lines of all time is “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Kennedy was right and Rush is wrong. Kennedy did not mean “what can you do for you government”, he meant “country” as in a collective whole comprised of the people of the United States. This is EXACTLY what Republicans claim to be for; how individuals can help the people/country not how the government can help its people. But just like everything else, Republicans are just going to jump and yell at everything that the Dems and the President do simply just because. It is shame we can’t agree even when we agree.

Common Sense

Common sense itself would tell you that everything the Republicans are saying about the health care debate is lies. I have already written about how they are actually scared of competition. They are afraid that private health insurers can’t compete with a government supported plan (their fear is valid but their arguments are weak). But nowadays we are hearing lies about the bills that just by using common sense, one would easily realize that they are not true.

The goal of all politicians should be to advance the needs and desires of the public. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of legislatures actually vote according to what will best keep their seats in Congress instead of what their constituents actually need or want (usually/hopefully these coincide). Everything they do seems to be geared towards re-election and often this means keeping the status quo. So let’s take that hypothesis of how things are actually viewed by Congress and apply it to the “death panel” controversy. Obviously the words “death panel” do not appear anywhere in any version of any bill, but neither does the premise behind the fear mongering words. If the Democrats and their bills, enacted a policy that actually did line up the elderly and disabled and deemed them unworthy of receiving care, they would be ensuring their own political demise. That would be the very opposite of what everyone does agree on, that politicians act to protect their own seats (and their party’s). Democrats would be ensuring a Republican majority for generations to come.

Unlike the private industry, the people actually have the power to hold representatives accountable. People on the Right love to tout using the power of the market to solve problems; however, the mere fact that we are having a health care debate means this theory has some major flaws. Elections are the ultimate measure of holding decision makers accountable. Legislatures would lose their seats in the very next election if they were to enact something as vile and evil as what the right-wing is accusing the Democrats are writing into the bill. Every decision and initiative the Democrats are writing into their bills is most likely overwhelmingly governed by ensuring they do not upset the current quality of health care in this nation. There are fears being spread about seniors not only being “put to death” but that care will be rationed (even though it already is by private insurers) and lines so long you won’t be able to see a doctor for months. These are very concrete fears, which is why common sense should tell you that they probably won’t happen! The health care reformers aren’t so stupid to diminish health care quality to the majority of the country so as to provide it to the smaller faction who currently needs it. If there is a significant and noticeable decrease in health care quality of any kind to the majority of the current health care holders in America, political heads will role. Politicians know this and will do everything in their power to ensure they don’t upset their masters. At least that is what common sense is telling me.

Show me the money!

With all this health care talk there are ideologies at war. The Republican ideology states that lower taxes on businesses result in higher profits that are used by the business for reinvestment and growth and all the benefits that accompany growth. These benefits are, in theory, past on to the consumer. Republicans believe in trickle-down economics or supply side economics. Democratic ideology is more based on trickle-up economics, otherwise named demand side economics. By improving the lives and pocket books of the lower and middle classes, Democrats believe consumption will increase which then spurs business growth to meet the increased demand. In the health care debate, the Democrats tend to be pessimistic of for-profit health care while the Republicans feel for-profit anything is the best solution for anything.

The Republicans are afraid that a government public plan will destroy the private market for health care insurance which will in turn destroy health care as we know it today. Republicans tend to believe that unfettered capitalism will regulate itself and benefit the masses. Through this, they decry that huge health care profits should be applauded. But shouldn’t we take a second look at huge profits and how businesses use them especially when quality and affordability is declining? The theory of reinvestment using profit sounds good to me, but capitalism is a theory that looks at the long term and seems to ignore the personal aspect of capitalism and the American/business culture of immediate self-gratification. I do believe that businesses do use profits for reinvestments but I would like to see the hard data and I think Republicans should tout the facts along with the theory.

By allowing for-profit health care, where are the consumer gains? Insurers and pharmaceuticals reap billions annually in profits; however, we keep hearing that health care costs increasing so quickly that the country is going to go bankrupt while not seeing an increase in health care quality. Is the industry really reinvesting their high profits as capitalism suggests they should be? I am sure the industries are reinvesting some of their profits but the product doesn’t suggest there are reinvesting enough. Prices are not related to profit, prices are related to demand. It seems that the health care industry seems preoccupied with maximizing their profits with the customers they already have instead of increasing their market size. If health care was in fact growing, expanding, and becoming more efficient; all be signs of reinvestment; please just show us the data. Now is the time to do it. Show us all the new jobs health care creates each year. Show us the increased efficiency and effectiveness of the product. Show us how the costumer is also winning because of reinvestment and growth.

Again, I believe the theory of high profits lead to reinvestments that benefit everyone, but please show us. Data shows that more and more people cannot afford health care and it is bankrupting the country. Fewer and fewer people are insured each year. A company that reinvests should be growing their customer base. By lowering costs and increasing effectiveness, businesses should be able to sell their product to a larger base of consumers. Lower prices with more customers usually are more profitable than high prices with fewer customers; just look at Wal-Mart. But since health care is practically essential, the health care industry can abandon traditional capitalistic theory and increase prices without worrying about their customers. By squeezing out those who cannot afford health care, they are maximizing their profits from those who can afford health care. If for-profit health care were working effectively, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The government public plan will promote competition which will force the health care industry to come back to traditional capitalism. Health care has the capital and profits to increase their customer volume, reinvest and grow their business. If government can’t run anything as famously and repeatedly stated, private industry should easily be able to use their profits to beat the public plan in the market. I believe in capitalism, I am just waiting to see it work for more than the CEOs.

HEALTHcare

It isn’t going to be long before we start hearing from the GOP about Big Brother and government controlling our lives. Right now the talk is about how Obama’s health care program is a move towards socialism and how it will cause lines to form from the doctor’s office back to the house from which you came. But as soon as the GOP begins to see that something will inevitably be done about health care in Obama’s first term (and probably his first year) they will dampen their socialism attack angle and begin Big Brother rhetoric and the fears of government intervention into our everyday lives. But would they be wrong? Not exactly.

I think the opposition would be absolutely correct (a Republican first) in acknowledging that once the US government starts to provide a public health care policy, government will begin to legislate new laws and enact new taxes on the American people. Taxes will increase on items such as sodas, alcohol, and cigarettes. I don’t think it would be a far stretch to see the government increase taxes of food providers such as McDonalds and Burger King and tax sugary foods higher than fruits and vegetables. State money will also not be used to provide unhealthy foods in our schools cafeterias. Tax increases will extend past final food products to agriculture and industry; raising emission and pollution standards and changing current agriculture subsidies and tax break policies. Republicans and some Democrats will be in an uproar about these impending laws, regulations and taxations. There will be the usual screams that government intervention and free market manipulation will destroy the businesses in question and how the government can’t be allowed control how we live our lives.

The future debates over health care reform are predictable, but I do not believe they are entirely warranted. Time and time again, the American public has shown that they cannot control themselves as a whole. Our finance consumption and reckless behavior has led us to our current economic recession. Our health habits are bringing us to a different type of disaster. Currently it is relatively difficult and expensive to eat healthy. Not only will prices of unhealthy foods increase through new taxes, but prices of fruits and vegetables will probably decrease through government subsides and tax breaks. Sometimes the American public need a little nudge to move in the right direction. This country is becoming increasingly unhealthy but hopefully the right policies can be adopted to help transition America to a more health friendly culture.

To control health care costs, preventative care will become just as important as the help we receive at the time of need. Americans should have the freedom to eat what they want, when they want, but the government shouldn’t have to pay for it down the line. The government will have to try to tax Americans into being healthier. By decreasing pollution, cigarette use, alcohol use, and sugar consumption, the government will be altering America’s food culture which will in turn decrease somewhat preventable diseases; diabetes, heath disease, blood pressure etc. and keep health care costs low. Since nothing in this country is a pure free market, I believe the government has the right to protect its health care investment by trying to make America a healthier country. No legislator is crazy enough to enact a dramatic and immediate policy that will cripple businesses. Policy and taxation, when used correctly can be used to safely steer industry down a new path without being too restrictive and without paralyzing the dynamics of the American economy that made this country so strong. The measures taken to make us healthier should be applauded for trying to improve the lives of Americans. America will continue to be a country based on consumption; however, that consumption needs to be much less destructive.

The passing of health care reform is going to lead to widespread changes in taxes and regulations in numerous aspects of the American economy. Health care reform will not only help those in need afford health care, but it will also help make the country lead healthier lives. Sure it appears health care reform is going to alter American culture through government action, but I think in this the case the ends will definitely justify the means.

Regulations

The purpose of industry regulations, in general, should be obvious. Regulations protect the public sector from the private sector. There is always a call for deregulation, usually by the Conservatives, stating that regulations shackle the private industry and inhibit them from growth. Conservatives tout that the free market will provide for self regulations: a business will be controlled by the demands of the public through their purchasing power. A simple look at history has shown that the free market system is not sufficient to protect the public.
In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which portrayed the horrors of the meat packing industry. In particular, the book focused on food safety issues. The book led to public outcry which then led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and eventually the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act through the efforts of Ralph Nader. GM and other car manufactures now would become regulated by the United States government protecting the consumer. This led to the addition of seatbelts and stronger windshields.
These are just two high profile regulations in America. There are thousands of regulations that the general public is unaware about that were enacted to protect the public and keep the economy moving forward. Where would we be without them? Many of us wouldn’t even be here today if it weren’t for some of these regulations. The purpose of regulations is to protect the public, or sometimes even the economic system itself from free market capitalism.
The problem with the free market solution and self-regulations can be easily seen in the current economic crisis. Sub-prime mortgage loans were being given by lenders to customers they knew could not repay. Then the bad loans were packaged and sold off to investors. It was the lack of regulations and oversight that allowed for this risky behavior to continue and eventually bring down the entire world’s economy. Regulations are meant to protect the average public from the free market. A truly free market has one goal and one goal only: make money.
In a truly free economy there would be no regulations and business changes would just be reactions to consumer demands through purchasing power. However, things are too complex for the consumer to be aware of EVERYTHING nor should they have to be. The reason our society is so successful is that we are not “jacks of all trades”. The workforce is trained to have individuals accomplish specific actions while someone else will take care of another part. Our faith in the efficiency and honesty of all the other members in society leaves us to become not only more efficient in our specific tasks but also spend our free time doing the things we enjoy, which in the hopes of the US economy is to CONSUME. That is why in college we pick a major; so we can be as efficient as possible in something specific and trust other to do the same in another field. As bad as it sounds, the American people should not have to waste their time being fully aware of all the intricacies of all aspects of the economy. A major part of our economy’s superiority is the trust we can (should) have in others.
In the example of the food packing industry in the early 1900s, the general public was not aware of all the problems within the industry, nor should they have been expected to be. Without The Jungle, people would have continued to be in the dark. It takes congressional passing of acts and regulations to ensure quick, decisive, and informed protections (in theory). Free market change in the example of the food industry would have been slow and inadequate. Industries have always shown that they will do the bare minimum in addressing consumer wants, nothing more nothing less. The more complex an industry, the more imbedded aspects might be that need to be regulated for consumer protection as seen in the current financial meltdown. Congressional legislation has the ability to investigate, debate and enact changes that hopefully are broad enough to cure the cause and not just the symptoms of what ails (or could ail) the economy. The purpose of the government is to protect its people, not just from foreign powers, but from internal capitalistic powers.
In a truly free economy, business would have the freedom to do as it pleases leaving the public to fend for themselves making changes in business through their purchasing power. There are currently thousands of regulations that protect the consumer. Throughout history the government has come to the realization (usually through tragedy or public outcry) that there must be rules and regulations. It is true that there is a very fine line between sufficient and too much regulation. Without regulation we would be completely vulnerable to the will of greedy free capitalism. However, the aspect of the America’s economy that keeps us on top of the world market is our dynamism. Our businesses have the freedom and flexibility to adjust and evolve quickly to market fluctuations keeping the economy moving and growing. Without this ability, which excessive regulations can inhibit, the US economy could possibly lose their number one position. Congress should always be very aware of this fine line but also always be aware of the perils of free market capitalism. This is how our economy has always functioned. The US has always been a mixed economy; capitalism with a dash of socialism. A free economy up to a point is important but then the government must move in to protect the public. Some may call this socialism but I call it common sense.