I am opposed to Obamacare as it is now. I am so opposed to the way that the President has prioritized his behaviors, including that with Obamacare that I voted for Mitt Romney in the last election though I was horrified at Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as a VP making his “sensible” dialogue seem untrustworthy in lieu of his allegiance to what I perceive as the less sensible and less mainstream Paul Ryan.
Ultimately, if President Obama has reminded me of the dishonesty of politicians, afraid that Democratic promises are empty and untrue, Republicans like Joni Ernst remind me that I can be equally alarmed by honesty of politicians, what if their plans DO come true?
Last night the ideas expressed by the President and then “responded” to by Senator Ernst, for me were more of the same, an uncooperative President and a dismissive Republican.
My first impression regarding Senator Ernst was, “How disrespectful,” when she opened her speech saying that “…rather than respond to a speech…”
Wow. Not “a speech,” Senator, the State of the Union given by our President. And not responding? Imagine your own conversations where someone refuses to respond to what you’re saying.
Very disrespectful, in my opinion, and it only got worse as Senator Ernst reiterated the same-old illogical arguments put forth by Republicans that alienate many Americans.
In talking about the “new Republican Congress,” Senator Ernst talked about “hearing” the American people. I’m not too sure about that.
Specifically, after mentioning citizen concern with “…the sting of the economy and the frustration with Washington’s dysfunction,” the Senator launched into her “personal” story of overcoming what she experienced as “poverty.”
I wish politicians would give up these homespun tales of what they were able to do in America in the good old days. The stories taken out of context are just that, stories.
It wasn’t until 1989 that Senator Rebecca Morgan became the first woman to wear “trousers” in the Senate. It wasn’t until 1948 that women were allowed to become permanent members of the military with the passage of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. So, in the good old days, there would have likely been no opportunity for Senator Ernst.
What’s the point of her claims of poverty? If anything, for me, her story showed how limited her understanding of “poverty” is. She didn’t discuss going hungry as it’s estimated one in six Americans do TODAY.
She didn’t talk about adults TODAY taking jobs formerly held by teenagers in times gone by such as working at Hardees.
And, if her Hardees salary truly was helping her “save for college,” then three things, Hardees paid more than minimum wage, college was very affordable in her day, and/or she was not required to give money into her household.
In fact, as the Economist.com informs in a 1/3/2015 article, “Robber Barons and Silicon Sultans,” “The years between the second world war and the late 1970s were years of low inequality of income in the United States.” These were the times of Joni Ernst.
Therefore it is ridiculous when Republicans (and Democrats) pull out these tired stories of how things could be based on the false assumption that they can recreate an America of decades ago by retelling their sentimental historical recollections without noting what is NO LONGER POSSIBLE in the America of today.
Back to Senator Ernst and her bread-bag galoshes. At 44, she lives in a time AFTER the US War on Poverty, the very expansive and very expensive policies that nonetheless were a REAL response that achieved REAL results that indicated that Lyndon Johnson really heard the American people (unlike either Democrats or Republicans today).
Significantly raising government spending to achieve significant results, Lyndon Johnson’s presidency achieved RESULTS: There was a fall in the poverty rate from 20 to 13 percent in the US, a drop of one-third of infant mortality in the US, and a drop in those living in housing without indoor plumbing from 20 to 11 percent. Before Medicare and Medicaid, it was estimated that 20 percent of poor America had NEVER SEEN a physician. (See University of Houston’s, Digital History, “Did the United States Lose the War on Poverty,” Topic ID 111, UH.EDU.
Those results of the 1960s War on Poverty were a far cry from today’s Democrats and Republicans whose self-interest and divided loyalties result in lukewarm and lagging legislation at best only tangentially addressing the American people’s concerns. That’s not about big or small government, that’s about priorities.
After all, as reported in, “The Incredible Shrinking US Government,” that appeared in, “The Atlantic,” on 4/5/2012, author JORDAN WEISSMANN wrote, “What do Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have in common that Obama doesn't? Total government grew under those presidents after they faced recessions.” Big government is non-partisan TODAY.
Senator Ernst goes on to use her “experience” to conclude that “Our parents may not have had much, but they worked hard for what they did have.” Meaning what? Remember, more adults can only find part-time work, low-wage work and it’s not about a WORK ETHIC it’s about the availability of WORK.
Senator Ernst does soften her implication that “hard work alone” was the answer by putting in that “stagnant wages and lost jobs” create a population “agonizing.” But that’s only her way of segueing into an attack on Obamacare.
Her next lines: “We see the hurt caused by canceled healthcare plans and higher monthly insurance bills.” Both these problems persist under Obamacare but were in existence long before Obamacare and in large part were what created our “healthcare crisis.”
Senator Ernst also talked about the “…the same stale mindset that led to failed policies like Obamacare,” which even critics like me admit may prove helpful to those newly covered by Medicaid. Iowa, by the way is one of the expansion states recognizing that since it has chosen to expand Medicaid (though trying to modify how the program works in Iowa). That’s Obamacare.
Senator Ernst then goes on to promote the Keystone Pipeline and export trade. She quickly returns to the US and really provides a convoluted, unclear and therefore suspicious proposal about our Tax Code: “Let’s simplify America’s outdated and loophole-ridden tax code. Republicans think tax filing should be easier for you, not just the well-connected. So, let’s iron out loopholes to lower rates and create jobs, not pay for more government spending.”
What does this even mean? In my opinion, nothing except the same old reduce tax rates for the rich (the usual trickle-down theory that hasn’t worked since wealthier Americans began taking advantage of offshore accounts and outsourcing in order to AVOID hiring and supporting Americans.) The only benefit she identifies for the other Americans, you know, the rest of us, is that it will be EASIER for us to file our taxes. Same old Republican ideas.
OK, Ernst moves on to the military, the issue that NO politician is willing to touch. As reported by CNN.com on May 15, 2013, in an article by Annalyn Kurtz, “Getting Into the Military is Getting Tougher,” and since 2005 the Army, “…like the other military branches, it has had a surplus of recruits every year since then.”
This is reality. We have a surplus of people VOLUNTEERING for the armed forces. It does not take away from their bravery and patriotism, but like statistics showing the progress of populations who benefited from affirmative action laws, it does lead to questions about how many entitlements must be provided to such populations.
The unevenness of the Republican stance that is pro military regardless of anything else is evident in Senator Ernst’s speech last night. “We must also honor America’s veterans…” No problem so far. “They deserve nothing less than the benefits they were promised and a quality of care we can all be proud of.”
Yet, Republicans are willing to toss “the promise” made to working Americans, non-military, who have paid into Medicare with the promise of some sort of quality of care in their old age as an unaffordable “entitlement.” This is lunacy.
Senator Ernst continues that they’ll work to “…repeal and replace a healthcare law that has hurt so many hardworking families…” Here’s the rub, from the scant information about the Republican plan (see post, “Democrats Bad, Republicans Worse,” 1/20/2014), the Republicans are more intent on repeal than facing the REALITY that there was and IS a healthcare crisis in America that is firmly rooted in the COSTS of both health insurance and health care.
Finally, Senator Ernst goes on to say, “We’ll protect life,” the abortion issue. Here, in my opinion, the Senator is guilty of the “political talking points, not serious solutions,” that she accuses Democrats of.
If Republicans have a plan to outlaw abortion and force women to see through any pregnancy, they must put their money where their mouths are with the proposal of concurrent programs, funding and infrastructure to accommodate the foreseeable consequences of more children being put up for adoption, more children costing governments more when they’re born premature, or with needs for surgery or long hospital stays, more special needs children needing special support, more families unable to support their members, more laws preventing a black market back alley abortion industry.
This is not an unreasonable expectation, since Republicans have shown consistent willingness to be brutal under many circumstances. Republicans are consistently unwilling to support Federal funding of programs designed to ease the greatest challenges of the poor whether it’s medical care, adequate shelter or adequate food. How then can they support the foreseeable increase in these populations without amending their prior views?
Currently, most Republicans are willing and ready to cut off access to life-saving medical care through the further contraction of access to medical care for the poor and elderly by restricting funds to Medicare and Medicaid (the infamous entitlements). How then can they support policies that will increase the need for such entitlements to preserve the lives of the newly born?
Reduction in welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, these are brutal policies for those affected and therefore forcing women to give birth or carry pregnancies to their natural ends which will result in more children being dependent on government, requires more than some bumper-sticker phrase such as pro-life.
At the end of her speech, Senator Ernst concludes with the boilerplate promise, “There’s a lot we can achieve if we work together.” Here, I’ll go back to the beginning…
My first impression regarding Senator Ernst was, “How disrespectful,” when she opened her speech saying that “…rather than respond to a speech…” Wow. Not “a speech,” Senator, the State of the Union given by our President. And NOT responding to it, how is that a sign of working together?
