Taking a look at the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists, I see that a journalist should, "test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid
inadvertent error." Or, as a huge sign at the City News Bureau of Chicago used to remind young news reporters, "IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE LOVES YOU, CHECK IT OUT."
Jobs in journalism are getting harder and harder to find. This makes professional standards such as the Code of Ethics more important than ever. If paid reporters are going to distinguish themselves from the two-bit-opinion bloggers like me, then they need to, among other things, report news stories accurately.
This is why I'm baffled by the recent phenomenon of "Obamacare Victim" interviews. In these interviews, popular with cable news since the healthcare.gov web site went live in October, a good citizen recounts their shock at finding out that their new health insurance will cost them much more than their perfectly good insurance did before. The fact that these stories aren't true is beside the point. The question is: why aren't journalists either verifying or refuting these stories before they report them?
Case in point. This CBS News report explained last month that, "people are losing their existing insurance plans," because, "requirements in the law, like prenatal and prescription drug coverage, mean their old plans aren't comprehensive enough." We are then introduced to Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old Florida resident, who was recently informed that her new plan will increase from $54 to $591 per month.
Shocking! Except here's what that report didn't tell you. First, Dianne isn't being asked to pay more than ten times as much for, "prenatal and prescription drug coverage." In reality, her current "plan" isn't actually health insurance, and even Dianne isn't aware of how little she's getting for her money. As blogger Heavy Mettle of dailykos.com notes, "Ms. Barrette goes on to say that this 'insurance' is perfect for what
she needs: a doctor visit copay and prescription copay, and maybe some
outpatient services. It turns out that she actually had that reversed
and the insurance company paid a $50 'copay' towards a doctor visit, and
$15 for prescriptions, and she herself was responsible for all the rest
of the costs." "Now this is exactly the type of junk insurance Obamacare is meant to
do away with, and it is not surprising that people don't know what their
insurance covers."
Nancy Metcalf of Consumer Reports also followed up on Dianne's story, and came up with the same information,
"Barrette’s expiring policy is a textbook example of a junk plan that isn’t real health insurance at all." "She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," Karen Pollitz, an insurance
expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, said. "I have to
assume that she never really had to make much of a claim under this
policy. She would have lost the house she's sitting in if something
serious had happened. I don't know if she knows that." "So, using tools available through eHealthinsurance.com... I determined that she qualifies
for a premium subsidy of $320 a month. She can use that to purchase a
Humana Direct Silver 4600/6300 plan for $165 a month."
Some of this information also came to light as the result of the a follow-up interview with Dianne Barrette on Fox News. Putting aside the irony of Fox News actually correcting the mistakes of another news outlet, the interview in question also uncovered the fact that CBS News failed to report a key fact regarding Dianne and her new health insurance options. As Timothy Christopher of mediaite.com notes, the Blue Cross plan in question, "was only one of many plans Dianne has to choose from,
10 of which are cheaper than that $591, and based on her income, she’d
only pay around $209 a month." Although CBS News did mention that Dianne might qualify for a subsidy, they failed to investigate and report on the fact that Dianne will only have to pay about a third of the quoted price of $591 for what is real health insurance. And again, why did CBS refer to Dianne's current plan, which provides only small co-pays for a few services, as "insurance?" To me, that's like referring to quack nostrums such as Bonnore's Electro Magnetic Bathing Fluid which claimed, among other things, to cure cholera, epilepsy, and scarlet fever, as "medicine."
On October 28 NBC News aired a virtually identical "Obamacare rate shock" story, also chock full of misleading information. That report introduces us to Deborah Cavallaro, someone, "who buys her own insurance." Paul Waldman of the The American Prospect summarizes the rest of the story,
"We learn in this story that her insurer is cancelling her current plan,
which costs $293 a month, because it doesn't comply with the new law.
They've offered her a new plan at $484 a month." The report tells us that, "the administration
points out that many people will get subsidies to offset the higher
costs." So what about Deborah? Is she going to get subsidies? (The report) doesn't
say, but she well may, which would mean she wouldn't be paying more, or
might actually be paying less."
"But wait. Maybe she's not a victim after all. How does the $484 plan
her current insurer is offering compare to the other ones she could get?
Did she or the reporter go to the California exchange and try to figure that out? Apparently, they didn't. But I did."
"It took less than 60 seconds. Let's assume that Deborah has a high
enough income that she isn't eligible for subsidies. I put in that I was
45 years old and got nine different choices for a Bronze plan, which in
all likelihood most closely resembles what Deborah has now. The average
monthly cost was $258, or $35 a month less than what Deborah's
paying now for her bare-bones plan. And that's for a plan that, while
it's the least expensive option, almost certainly involves less
cost-sharing that what Deborah has to deal with now. She can get a
Silver plan, with more generous coverage, for $316, only $23 more than
she's paying now. Congratulations, Deborah!"
In closing, I'd like to return to Dianne Barrette one more time. Now that she's fully aware about the quality, affordable health insurance available to her through Obamacare, how does she feel? Jonathan Cohn of the the New Republic, spoke to her, and,
"I would jump at it," she said. "With my age, things can happen. I
don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to
lose my house."
Barrette can't be sure until she sees the numbers
for herself. And so far she hasn't been able to do so, thanks to the
technological problems at healthcare.gov. But as she’s become more aware
of her options, she said, she’s no longer aghast at losing her plan—and
curious to see what alternatives are available. "Maybe," she told me,
"it’s a blessing in disguise."
Too bad CBS News doesn't have any real journalists, or Dianne might have been aware of the benefits of Obamacare a lot sooner.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Saturday, August 10, 2013
I Have Rights Too: An Argument Against Guns in Public Places
I've always loved Mark Twain's semi-autobiographical book entitled Roughing It. It principally follows Twain's travels through the Wild West in the 1860s. Among the the many colorful stories in Roughing It are tales of old-time bandits and gunfighters.
Twain described life at a stagecoach station in the Rocky Mountains this way:
It was the very paradise of outlaws and desperadoes. There was absolutely no semblance of law there. Violence was the rule. Force was the only recognized authority. The commonest misunderstandings were settled on the spot with the revolver or the knife. Murders were done in open day, and with sparkling frequency, and nobody thought of inquiring into them. It was considered that the parties who did the killing had their private reasons for it; for other people to meddle would have been looked upon as indelicate.
Regarding the "gunfighters" of the Old West, Twain said,
The best known names in the Territory of Nevada were those belonging to these long-tailed heroes of the revolver. They were brave, reckless men, and traveled with their lives in their hands. To give them their due, they did their killing principally among themselves, and seldom molested peaceable citizens, for they considered it small credit to add to their trophies so cheap a bauble as the death of a man who was "not on the shoot," as they phrased it. They killed each other on slight provocation, and hoped and expected to be killed themselves-- for they held it almost shame to die otherwise than "with their boots on," as they expressed it.
While it all sounds quite romantic, I can't say I'm eager to live in a place where a heavily-armed citizenry practices vigilante justice and routinely settles petty arguments with bullets. But in 21st century America, that exactly where we're headed.
I've been asked if the Second Amendment is outmoded. It isn't. It's simply been misinterpreted thanks to one of the many disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions of the last few years. Until 2010, the law of the land on prohibiting ownership of some kinds of weapons was based on the case Miller v. United States:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court overturned Miller, and by extension the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and, that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment.
I was never in favor of a total ban on handguns. I think it makes more sense to try to convince people that keeping them in their homes is a bad idea. I'm much more disturbed by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in December of 2012 striking down Illinois' ban on concealed-carry of handguns in public. In a 2-1 ruling, the Court said, "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."
Personally, I agree with the dissenting Judge in the Court decision cited above who noted, "when firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area." Or, to put it more simply, as then Governor of California Ronald Reagan said in the 1960s, "There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Americans do not need handguns to protect themselves in public. I do not want to be shot by concealed handguns that fire accidentally. I do not want to be shot by stray bullets fired by armed vigilantes trying to stop crime. I do not want to be accidentally shot by people firing their guns to scare other people. I do not want to be shot by people with concealed-carry permits who go crazy and just start shooting. I have rights too, including the right to not be put at risk of being shot by people who carry loaded guns everywhere for no compelling reason.
But the gun lobby is never content. The right to carry loaded handguns in public is not enough of course. So we move to the next fight: the demand for the right to carry guns everywhere, even on private property. And with that demand, of course, comes the nonsense argument that more guns in private places makes everyone safer.
Businesses are now under heavy pressure to allow customer to carry guns on their premises, As the Chicago Tribune reported recently,
"Under the recently passed concealed carry law, businesses can now choose whether to allow handguns on their property. If they post a sign outside their business declaring it gun-free, patrons are not allowed to bring them in.
But in deciding to ban or allow guns, business owners worry they may alienate patrons who support one side or the other. Business owners also worry their choice could saddle them with legal liability, should something go terribly wrong."
The gun lobby of course has no intention of letting businesses decide for themselves whether to allow guns. According to the Arizona Daily Star,
"The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a nonprofit group that supports expanding gun owners' legal rights, provides templates of business-sized cards on its website that users can print out to hand to business owners who prohibit firearms. Under a logo indicating no guns means no money, the cards say "You have made a decision to ban guns in your store. I am going to respect that decision and take my gun and my money to a competing business.""
Companies like Starbucks Coffee have made it clear that they would prefer not to allow guns on their premises, but they no longer feel they have choice. A spokesman for the company has commented, "In communities that permit open carry, we abide by local laws. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited."
In Arizona, Pizza Hut has reversed its no-guns policy and is allowing customers to carry firearms into the restaurant if they are legal possessors. A spokesperson noted that the new policy doesn't apply to employees, who won't be able to carry guns at work. "For safety reasons we have always had a 'no weapon' policy (while working) for all of us at Pizza Hut of Arizona" It's interesting that Pizza Hut's official comment on the change is similar to that of Starbucks: they believe that guns on the premises make everyone less, not more safe.
They're right of course: guns carried by persons without weapons and law enforcement training make everyone less safe. This is not an opinion, it's statistical fact, as demonstrated by actuarial science. Consider for example a recent decision in Kansas that permits teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms in schools. Journalist Charles B Pierce notes,
"The EMC Insurance Co. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said. "We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed.""
Twain described life at a stagecoach station in the Rocky Mountains this way:
It was the very paradise of outlaws and desperadoes. There was absolutely no semblance of law there. Violence was the rule. Force was the only recognized authority. The commonest misunderstandings were settled on the spot with the revolver or the knife. Murders were done in open day, and with sparkling frequency, and nobody thought of inquiring into them. It was considered that the parties who did the killing had their private reasons for it; for other people to meddle would have been looked upon as indelicate.
Regarding the "gunfighters" of the Old West, Twain said,
The best known names in the Territory of Nevada were those belonging to these long-tailed heroes of the revolver. They were brave, reckless men, and traveled with their lives in their hands. To give them their due, they did their killing principally among themselves, and seldom molested peaceable citizens, for they considered it small credit to add to their trophies so cheap a bauble as the death of a man who was "not on the shoot," as they phrased it. They killed each other on slight provocation, and hoped and expected to be killed themselves-- for they held it almost shame to die otherwise than "with their boots on," as they expressed it.
While it all sounds quite romantic, I can't say I'm eager to live in a place where a heavily-armed citizenry practices vigilante justice and routinely settles petty arguments with bullets. But in 21st century America, that exactly where we're headed.
I've been asked if the Second Amendment is outmoded. It isn't. It's simply been misinterpreted thanks to one of the many disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions of the last few years. Until 2010, the law of the land on prohibiting ownership of some kinds of weapons was based on the case Miller v. United States:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court overturned Miller, and by extension the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and, that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment.
I was never in favor of a total ban on handguns. I think it makes more sense to try to convince people that keeping them in their homes is a bad idea. I'm much more disturbed by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in December of 2012 striking down Illinois' ban on concealed-carry of handguns in public. In a 2-1 ruling, the Court said, "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."
Personally, I agree with the dissenting Judge in the Court decision cited above who noted, "when firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area." Or, to put it more simply, as then Governor of California Ronald Reagan said in the 1960s, "There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Americans do not need handguns to protect themselves in public. I do not want to be shot by concealed handguns that fire accidentally. I do not want to be shot by stray bullets fired by armed vigilantes trying to stop crime. I do not want to be accidentally shot by people firing their guns to scare other people. I do not want to be shot by people with concealed-carry permits who go crazy and just start shooting. I have rights too, including the right to not be put at risk of being shot by people who carry loaded guns everywhere for no compelling reason.
But the gun lobby is never content. The right to carry loaded handguns in public is not enough of course. So we move to the next fight: the demand for the right to carry guns everywhere, even on private property. And with that demand, of course, comes the nonsense argument that more guns in private places makes everyone safer.
Businesses are now under heavy pressure to allow customer to carry guns on their premises, As the Chicago Tribune reported recently,
"Under the recently passed concealed carry law, businesses can now choose whether to allow handguns on their property. If they post a sign outside their business declaring it gun-free, patrons are not allowed to bring them in.
But in deciding to ban or allow guns, business owners worry they may alienate patrons who support one side or the other. Business owners also worry their choice could saddle them with legal liability, should something go terribly wrong."
The gun lobby of course has no intention of letting businesses decide for themselves whether to allow guns. According to the Arizona Daily Star,
"The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a nonprofit group that supports expanding gun owners' legal rights, provides templates of business-sized cards on its website that users can print out to hand to business owners who prohibit firearms. Under a logo indicating no guns means no money, the cards say "You have made a decision to ban guns in your store. I am going to respect that decision and take my gun and my money to a competing business.""
Companies like Starbucks Coffee have made it clear that they would prefer not to allow guns on their premises, but they no longer feel they have choice. A spokesman for the company has commented, "In communities that permit open carry, we abide by local laws. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited."
In Arizona, Pizza Hut has reversed its no-guns policy and is allowing customers to carry firearms into the restaurant if they are legal possessors. A spokesperson noted that the new policy doesn't apply to employees, who won't be able to carry guns at work. "For safety reasons we have always had a 'no weapon' policy (while working) for all of us at Pizza Hut of Arizona" It's interesting that Pizza Hut's official comment on the change is similar to that of Starbucks: they believe that guns on the premises make everyone less, not more safe.
They're right of course: guns carried by persons without weapons and law enforcement training make everyone less safe. This is not an opinion, it's statistical fact, as demonstrated by actuarial science. Consider for example a recent decision in Kansas that permits teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms in schools. Journalist Charles B Pierce notes,
"The EMC Insurance Co. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said. "We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed.""
Monday, May 27, 2013
All Politics, No Policy: The New Negligence of Congressional Republicans
Last month Congress held a hearing on long-term unemployment before the 19-member Joint Economic Committee. No Republicans attended. There are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, 61 of which don't even have a nominee, largely because some Senate Republicans have simply stopped participating in the nomination process. Meanwhile on the legislative front, taking a look at the agenda set by the House Republican leadership, Jonathan Bernstein of Salon.com notes,
"Over 100 days into the current Congress, their agenda is … almost completely empty. In fact, of the (first) 10 reserved slots, there’s only one bill filed. That’s H.R.3. a bill to force the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. Even that is pretty minimal – it’s far more of a symbolic position than it is an energy policy. And even that took until March 15 to introduce. But at least it’s a real bill, and to their credit it is a substantive measure, even if it’s not an overall energy policy. Beyond that, Republicans have announced that H.R. 1 is reserved for a tax reform bill. There is, however, no bill, at least not so far."
So, did the Republicans disappear? Were they called up to heaven in the rapture, and the rest of us are, "Left Behind?" Sadly, no. Instead, they've simply stopped fulfilling their responsibilities to keep government functional. Apparently, Congressional Republicans are content to stop pretending that they're doing anything but trying to build and maintain power and to hold an endless series of "symbolic" votes condemning President Obama. In April, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC commented on this, suggesting that Republicans in Washington are now simply, "post policy."
Maddow was discussing the fact that Republicans had demanded that President Obama accept Social Security cuts, Obama had agreed to the cuts in hopes of reaching a budget compromise, and Republicans then attacked Obama for proposing the cut they demanded. This resulted in the following exchange between Maddow and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:
MADDOW: Does that mean that [Republican policymakers are] post-policy, that the policy actually -- even some things that seem like constants don't actually a matter them, that it's pure politics, just positioning themselves vis-a-vis the president, and they're not actually invested in any particular outcome for the country?
KLEIN: I would like to have an answer where that isn't true. I really would. And I've tried -- I've been trying to find it. I'm sure part is I'm not smart enough to do so, that I've not found the right people to have spoken to them. But it is hard to come up with one.
In most jobs where you get a paycheck, Congressional Republicans would have been fired for dereliction of duty by now. But that's not how Congress works. I've been taking a look at WHY Republicans are doing what they are doing, and here's what I've come up with.
Reason #1: Hate.
On a recent appearance of Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO, filmmaker Michael Moore suggested, according to Jeff Poor of the Daily Caller, "that Republicans’ efforts to repeal Obama’s health care reform and Senate Republicans’ blocking of his judicial nominations go beyond loyal opposition and could rise to the level of treason." On the show, Moore commented,
"What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don’t know, treason, you know? I mean they’ve also blocked Obama’s head of the EPA. There’s no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."
Are Michael Moore's comments over the top? Not really, when one considers that Republican leaders are admitting that what Moore is saying is true. Consider the recent failure of background check legislation for private gun purchases, a law supported by 90% of the public. Republican Senator Pat Toomey claims that the GOP minority killed the bill with a filibuster because, "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it." And such an admission is not anything new. In 2010, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that in no uncertain terms that his primary focus was not good government, but instead, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Returning the Jonathan Bernstein article I linked above, "My guess is that the Republican-aligned partisan press is just so easy for Republican politicians that they’ve all become lazy. If all you have to do to be a favorite guest on Fox News or on syndicated conservative talk radio is to mutter something vague about Benghazi and make a teleprompter joke, what’s the incentive of doing the hard work of actually writing a bill?"
Bernstein is quite correct about the attitude of the right-wing press. Leading conservative publications are openly encouraging Republicans to remain "post policy." In a recent letter from the Heritage Foundation to members of Congress, that organization encouraged Republicans to focus their time and attention solely on Obama administration "scandals," saying,
"it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference."
"To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another ‘circular firing squad’ article."
Reason #3: Republicans Can't Stand Each Other
Ah yes, about that "circular firing squad" the Heritage Foundation letter mentioned. In a recent article entitled, "A House in Chaos," Jake Sherman of Politico.com noted,
"Speaker John Boehner, (Majority Leader Eric) Cantor and (Majority Whip Kevin) McCarthy are plagued by a conference split into two groups. In one camp are stiff ideologues who didn’t extract any lesson from Mitt Romney’s loss and are only looking to slash spending and defund President Barack Obama’s health care law at every turn. In the other are lawmakers who are aligned with Cantor, who is almost singularly driving an agenda which is zeroed in on family issues."
How has this divide manifested itself? Well, last month Majority Leader Eric Cantor actually made a sincere effort to create some legislation. Cantor's effort to "rebrand" the Republican party began with a speech in which he suggested the pursuit of, "an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families." This "vision" of course, translated into yet another in an endless series of votes to repeal health care reform. Unfortunately, according to an April 24th article by Lisa Mascaro of the Los Angeles Times,
"That ambitious goal ran smack into political reality Wednesday as conservative lawmakers rejected a Republican bill to help Americans with preexisting health conditions gain access to insurance coverage. Republican leaders had to abruptly yank the bill from consideration because they did not have enough votes from their rank and file to pass it. The episode was another example of the difficulty the Republican Party faces in corralling its unruly majority and finding a common message to attract voters."
In conclusion, House Republicans may be in power for some time, given that they've gerrymandered enough states to virtually guarantee majority control. Considering their recent conduct in Washington, public approval of Congress is likely to long remain where it is today: at an all-time low.
"Over 100 days into the current Congress, their agenda is … almost completely empty. In fact, of the (first) 10 reserved slots, there’s only one bill filed. That’s H.R.3. a bill to force the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. Even that is pretty minimal – it’s far more of a symbolic position than it is an energy policy. And even that took until March 15 to introduce. But at least it’s a real bill, and to their credit it is a substantive measure, even if it’s not an overall energy policy. Beyond that, Republicans have announced that H.R. 1 is reserved for a tax reform bill. There is, however, no bill, at least not so far."
So, did the Republicans disappear? Were they called up to heaven in the rapture, and the rest of us are, "Left Behind?" Sadly, no. Instead, they've simply stopped fulfilling their responsibilities to keep government functional. Apparently, Congressional Republicans are content to stop pretending that they're doing anything but trying to build and maintain power and to hold an endless series of "symbolic" votes condemning President Obama. In April, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC commented on this, suggesting that Republicans in Washington are now simply, "post policy."
Maddow was discussing the fact that Republicans had demanded that President Obama accept Social Security cuts, Obama had agreed to the cuts in hopes of reaching a budget compromise, and Republicans then attacked Obama for proposing the cut they demanded. This resulted in the following exchange between Maddow and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:
MADDOW: Does that mean that [Republican policymakers are] post-policy, that the policy actually -- even some things that seem like constants don't actually a matter them, that it's pure politics, just positioning themselves vis-a-vis the president, and they're not actually invested in any particular outcome for the country?
KLEIN: I would like to have an answer where that isn't true. I really would. And I've tried -- I've been trying to find it. I'm sure part is I'm not smart enough to do so, that I've not found the right people to have spoken to them. But it is hard to come up with one.
In most jobs where you get a paycheck, Congressional Republicans would have been fired for dereliction of duty by now. But that's not how Congress works. I've been taking a look at WHY Republicans are doing what they are doing, and here's what I've come up with.
Reason #1: Hate.
On a recent appearance of Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO, filmmaker Michael Moore suggested, according to Jeff Poor of the Daily Caller, "that Republicans’ efforts to repeal Obama’s health care reform and Senate Republicans’ blocking of his judicial nominations go beyond loyal opposition and could rise to the level of treason." On the show, Moore commented,
"What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don’t know, treason, you know? I mean they’ve also blocked Obama’s head of the EPA. There’s no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."
Are Michael Moore's comments over the top? Not really, when one considers that Republican leaders are admitting that what Moore is saying is true. Consider the recent failure of background check legislation for private gun purchases, a law supported by 90% of the public. Republican Senator Pat Toomey claims that the GOP minority killed the bill with a filibuster because, "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it." And such an admission is not anything new. In 2010, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that in no uncertain terms that his primary focus was not good government, but instead, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Reason #2: Laziness
Returning the Jonathan Bernstein article I linked above, "My guess is that the Republican-aligned partisan press is just so easy for Republican politicians that they’ve all become lazy. If all you have to do to be a favorite guest on Fox News or on syndicated conservative talk radio is to mutter something vague about Benghazi and make a teleprompter joke, what’s the incentive of doing the hard work of actually writing a bill?"
Bernstein is quite correct about the attitude of the right-wing press. Leading conservative publications are openly encouraging Republicans to remain "post policy." In a recent letter from the Heritage Foundation to members of Congress, that organization encouraged Republicans to focus their time and attention solely on Obama administration "scandals," saying,
"it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference."
"To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another ‘circular firing squad’ article."
Reason #3: Republicans Can't Stand Each Other
Ah yes, about that "circular firing squad" the Heritage Foundation letter mentioned. In a recent article entitled, "A House in Chaos," Jake Sherman of Politico.com noted,
"Speaker John Boehner, (Majority Leader Eric) Cantor and (Majority Whip Kevin) McCarthy are plagued by a conference split into two groups. In one camp are stiff ideologues who didn’t extract any lesson from Mitt Romney’s loss and are only looking to slash spending and defund President Barack Obama’s health care law at every turn. In the other are lawmakers who are aligned with Cantor, who is almost singularly driving an agenda which is zeroed in on family issues."
How has this divide manifested itself? Well, last month Majority Leader Eric Cantor actually made a sincere effort to create some legislation. Cantor's effort to "rebrand" the Republican party began with a speech in which he suggested the pursuit of, "an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families." This "vision" of course, translated into yet another in an endless series of votes to repeal health care reform. Unfortunately, according to an April 24th article by Lisa Mascaro of the Los Angeles Times,
"That ambitious goal ran smack into political reality Wednesday as conservative lawmakers rejected a Republican bill to help Americans with preexisting health conditions gain access to insurance coverage. Republican leaders had to abruptly yank the bill from consideration because they did not have enough votes from their rank and file to pass it. The episode was another example of the difficulty the Republican Party faces in corralling its unruly majority and finding a common message to attract voters."
In conclusion, House Republicans may be in power for some time, given that they've gerrymandered enough states to virtually guarantee majority control. Considering their recent conduct in Washington, public approval of Congress is likely to long remain where it is today: at an all-time low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)