Does the government really ruin everything?

During this health care debate, one of the constant refrains heard is, "Keep government away from health care, all they do is screw everything up." If that is the case, why not take government out of all that it does, if you really think it can do no right. What would an America without government intervention in our lives look like?

First most people would not be able to read this, since government provides a comprehensive public education that serves the vast majority of people in this nation. Not everyone can afford what the market has determined as the cost of a private education. Would people say that we should just scrap public education that we have featured as part of the American experience since colonial times.

Next, let us imagine life without police, fire, EMS and public works. All of these are government provided for the most part around the country. I don't see people storming City Hall and demanding a return to for-profit fire protection. I don't think people would say that having sewers, paved streets, and a police is such a bad thing. Would you really want to hire your own 24 hour private fire, ambulance and security force?

The government also provide for our military. Would anyone want us to dissolve our armed forces and rely on private armies to defend our nation? This is the army that secured the freedom of the world when it defeated fascism during WWII. I think I would trust my nation's security our government run army rather than say Blackwater or Wackenhut.

And don't forget about the post office. You put that stamp on your properly addressed envelope and place it in the blue box on the corner. You wait a few days. Then who would have thought, it arrives at the address you designated on the envelope. If that isn't screwed up I don't know what is.

Now government isn't the answer to everything. There are things that the government should not do. Ensuring the general welfare of its citizens is not one of them. Government is the only means we have of ensuring that the free market remains free, that competition is fair, and that those who wish to innovate can. It also can provide a narrow range of services, many would call the commons, which operate better as a monopoly and very limited overhead. Education, roads, water, sewer, emergency services are all things that benefit the community as a whole and whose costs ought to be shouldered by all citizens and business in the community. Taxes are the way we pay for all of this. People might thing the term tax and spend is bad, it is actually fiscally responsible. What should worry you is your elected representatives who wish to spend more and tax less. Common sense should dictate that that paradigm just doesn't add up.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson...ignoring the facts

As part of the recent push to make the people's voices are heard in the health care debate, I e-mailed my elected representatives to make my opinions known. Most representatives send back a reply of some sort, either e-mail or some boilerplate reply with a stamped signature.

When I received my reply from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) I found more than I expected. I expected her to ignore the economists and push hard for the status quo. Even the idea of using tax monies to subsidized the inflated insurance company profits by proposing both vouchers to pay for insurance for the uninsured and coming out against allowing people to buy into the Medicare system. I did not expect the Senator to lie, yes lie in her response.

In the 3rd paragraph she comes out against allowing Medicare to compete with the private insurance since she believes this would lead to a single payer system. If you believe in the free market you should welcome this competition. If, as you state, government will run this inefficiently and bungle the system, then they will fail in the market. You are in effect stating that the current, for-profit players in the system's products are so poor and lacking that an inefficient government administered program would threaten their hegemony. If that is the case the problems in are health care system are worse than we thought.

In the same paragraph Sen. Hutchinson stated that she would not cover her family with government sponsored insurance. As a member of Congress she has access to a clinic in the Capital building run by the Department of the Navy, a government agency, which provides quick service in the event of feeling ill while at the office and not wanting to wait to make an appointment. If she needs a higher level of care or surgery, she can be treated at Walter Reed Medical Center run by the U.S. Army, another government agency. As a member of Congress she is able to pick plans to cover her family from a government administered insurance exchange, the same exchange that Ted Kennedy wanted to open up to the American people as far back as 1976 and that Barack Obama advocated during his campaign last year. You are the recipient of government administered health care right now.

The most incredible statements occurred at the end of the next paragraph in which she was trying to muddy the waters on the idea of a co-op. In her words, "The Administration has tried to bail out the banking, housing, and auto industry; would these co-ops be next? " That kind of sentiment might fire up those that might take what she says as gospel, but the rest of us might want to check out her statements. When you do, this sentence is a huge lie. First, it is not the administration of Barack Obama that bailed the banks or the housing market. It was a bill passed by Congress before the August recess in 2008 and signed into law by then President George Bush that bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and tried to mitigate the damage the sub prime lending meltdown caused. This bill passed with overwhelming support in the Senate and you voted Yea for final passage. Troubled Assets Relief Program, or the bank bailout was considered in September 2008. George Bush both proposed the legislation and signed it into law, and once again Kay you voted for its passage. Then when Barack Obama wished to extend a line of credit to our auto makers, which account for millions of jobs and the bulk of our manufacturing base only then did you come out against such actions. When George Bush asked you to write a blank check to Wall Street to save the very people whose reckless speculation helped cause, you could not say yes fast enough. Kay, get the facts straight before you pass judgement, trying to blame Barack Obama for the state of the Economy, which because of the Stimulus package is beginning to turn around, is like a homeowner blaming the firemen for the loss of their possessions in the fire they caused when they left the cigarette burning on counter which caused the fire.

Your letter was enlightening, you have proved what the progressive pundits have said all along, that the Republican party is devoid of real ideas for change, that their mantra is simply to oppose all legislation, cause gridlock and hope people aren't any wiser come election day. Texas deserves better in its elected representatives, it deserves fresh ideas in order to tackle the real problems it faces. Texans from Midland to the Rio Grande Valley need real leadership. With you and Rick Perry all we are left wondering is who is pulling the strings we see.

Healthcare reform and the politics of fear.

In this editorial opinion, Bill Moyers brought an eloquence to our national discourse that has not been seen since Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. While he explored the health care debate he also touched on the growing fear, bordering on paranoia that is bubbling to the surface in American life. While the debate may seem new, it is clear that some of it is a result of the latent racism the is still lurking beneath the facade in some parts of the nation.

It has been said that it is easier to say we are sorry than to admit we were wrong, the tone of our national discourse would seem to illustrate this. If we step back, for the most part a President speaking to our children on staying in school and working toward goals is not some plot to indoctrinate the children with a socialist message. The idea of offering our citizens the opportunity to buy into Medicare before we reach 65 as an alternative to private insurance is not close to socialized medicine. Yet the debate would suggest that some can not make these distinctions.

Who are the ones making the noise, many of them were the ones who have supported the Neo-Conservative movement since the days of Ronald Reagan. If people like Paul Krugman or Thom Hartmann are correct, it is the economic policies pursued since 1980 caused the current economic condition. Beginning with Reagan, all of the market safeguard put in place by Roosevelt as a result of the Great Depression began to be dismantled one at a time. These safeguards included the protection of workers who wished to organize, the separation of investment banks from commercial banks among others.

These policies saw the nation's average wage decline while the earnings for the wealthiest grow at astounding rates. We saw government abdicate its responsibility to regulate the market and ensure safety to a the industries themselves with disastrous consequences.

Remember people do not like being told they were wrong. People voted for the conservatives not only because they bought into the idea of prosperity but because the conservatives would play to the fears. They voted for people who preached a smaller government but advocated a government large enough to interject itself in the most private affairs of its citizens. They see people around them that are different from themselves and fear the change that it represents. The conservatives played to those fears. Now with our economy holding on by a thread they do not want to face the reality that they voted for the leaders whose policy brought us to where we are now, and they don't like it.

Since the days of old, it is easy to exploit fear during times of economic distress. Blame the other guy for what is wrong. That is easy. In this case President Barack Obama is of mixed ethincity and that brings old prejudices back into vogue. Hate groups have seen an upsurge in membership and activity. At least 2 times at a recent town hall meeting in an Hispanic congressional district, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez was grilled on the potential of health care money being spent on care of illegal immigrants by angry white audience members.

Instead of trying to learn from the mistakes of the past, the Republican party has tried to blame incoming administration for the problems they created. To blame Barack Obama for the state of the economy right now is akin to blaming the firemen for the loss of your house when you are the one who left the cigarette smoldering on couch cushion that set the blaze. The situation we are in took over 20 years of effort to cause, it will not be fixed overnight. It took FDR more than one term to fully repair the damage to our nation from the Great Depression.

It is up to each of us to rise above our level of discourse and begin the vital debate on the issues that are really pressing. We need to encourage our elected leaders to quit thier bickering and do the jobs they were hired to perform. We are not their servants, they are ours. They are the ones who are supposed to put petty differences aside and do what is right for the nation as a whole. That is the true intention of our founding fathers.