I haven't been paying much attention to this telenovela called "Health Care Reform" (I've been otherwise occupied, you know), but I have noticed a large amount of venom and vitriol being hurled at one man: Senator Joseph Liebermann (I-CT). Despite my mind being elsewhere these days, I have to say I'm pretty surprised by this and a tad dismayed.
I think, as a Senator, Joe is a rather pragmatic legislator; a principle-driven Centrist. I can dig that. Ultimately, I think this is why the liberal shock-troops and "Caviar Commies" have made him Public Enemy Numero Uno in their salons. Now that they have a sympathetic darling in the White House and control at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this is their time to shine and health care reform has become their raison d'être. And now Joe and his Centrism is going to spoil it for them.
From what I understand, Joe's skepticism about the health care reform is derived from the fact that he's afraid there are no viable ways to pay for it. Personally, I have similar concerns, as I can't figure out how a liberal Christmas-come-early that is the health care bill is not going to add to our budget woes when the only ways the bill's authors are willing to suggest it will be paid for is soaking the rich and future Medicare entitlement cuts. The former is populist and unsustainable and the latter is like an alcoholic opening a bottle of Jack Daniels and saying he will save half of it for later.
So now the left has its sights set on Joe as he's going to be the one person to check their unchecked power. Several explanations for his misbehavior have been posited. The most prevalent is that this is his sweet revenge for their being turncoats in 2006. I think there is something to this, but it's not revenge. Rather, being dumped by the party liberated Joe to be able to think for himself and not constantly espouse the textbook liberal agenda. I guarantee that if he were still a Democratic Senator, he would be arm-twisting for the passage of this bill. At least, he would be more susceptible to having his arm twisted. But, as an Independent no longer locked in the the Democratic talking points, he can be outspoken with his criticism, whether or not it happens to be correct.
Another argument for his lack of support of the health-care bill is because he's getting paid hand over fist by the insurance companies. This is preposterous, as health insurers are not even in the top five of his contributors from 2005-2010. As expected in a state like Connecticut where half the state is a bedroom community for New York City, his largest contributing industry is the securities and investment industry. But, even if he was receiving money from health insurers to vote down reform, he's not doing anything Senators don't already do - ad nauseam. Where is the venom from these same liberals when Chuck Schumer is hammering out sweet deals for Wall Street or Tom Harkin is voting for pie-in-the-sky farm subsidies? These guys are all getting bundles of cash for their support (or lack of support) for certain things. I agree that it sucks. I think it's sanctioned bribery. But it's the system. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I don't like everything about Joe. I question his judgement in unequivocally supporting Israel and the war in Iraq. But, in my opinion, we need more legislators like him. Being an independent in a state like Connecticut is perfect: it gives him the ability to work for both the white collar and blue collar constituencies that define this state. I think he's done a hell of a job for this state since 1988 and, given the chance, I will gladly support him in the future. But, I'm a sucker for a Centrist.
1 comment:
A few comments.
First of all we now have 44 million plus uninsured in our country. The amount of money it takes to treat these people is stupendous and a huge drag on our system. Just getting 30 million or so into the insured system will reduce costs tremendously.
Secondly, Mr. Lieberman has accepted more than a million dollars from the insurance companies. If he has accepted more from financial institutions, that is bad too (likewise for Schumer et al).
And lastly, and perhaps most importanly, he has gone back on a pledge. He made this pledge to his constituents when he told them during his re-election bid that he supported the expansion of medicaid to cover more of our disadvantaged citizens. He has renegged on that pledge without so much as giving a reason why. By the by, he made a similar pledge to the democratic majority in order to keep his Chairmenship of the Homeland Security Comm. This is also bad, but sadly occurs all the time in our current way of doing business in DC.
Post a Comment