Nailing Health Care Reform to the Wall

The Vice president for public policy and research for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Barrett Duke, took his time in responding to President Obama's September 9 speech to Congress. In an article dated September 16, he asked, "Where is the President's Health Care Reform Bill?"

In August, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) released an Analysis of The House Health Care Bill, H.R. 3200. The analysis concluded, in part,

The simple fact is that if passed, no one can say for certain how badly this will all play out in practice. However, what we can say with absolute certainty is that this legislation will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes, and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty.

After the release of the ERLC's analysis, as the health care debate continued in Washington and in town hall meetings across the country, some Senators distanced themselves from the House resolution.

Virginia Senator Mark Warner has set up a Web page on information and resources concerning health care reform. Dates are not listed and therefore, based on Senator Warner's information, a timeline cannot be well established. At one point, under the banner of "Frequently asked questions," Warner, or his staff, answered the question,

Has Senator Warner read the text of the health care reform legislation?

...At the moment, the only version that is being discussed in public is the House version of the bill, which is just one of many health reform proposals in Congress. Once a final bill is introduced in the Senate, Senator Warner will read the bill and post it on our website so you can read it, too.

Warner's Web site indicated the bill which would eventually be considered in the Senate would be comprised of two different documents. One, a proposal from the Senate HELP Committee and the other from the Senate Finance Committee. At the time the answer to the above question was published, the Senate Finance Committee had not yet completed and released "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009." The committee noted it was "Scheduled for Markup By the Senate Committee on Finance On September 22, 2009," that document is 223 pages in length. The Senate HELP Committee proposal is 615 pages in length and can be read by following this link.

MSNBC reported in mid-July, a bipartisan group of Senators sought more time to write a bipartisan bill. At the time, the White House had imposed an August deadline to pass "the" health care reform bill. Such a statement seems to imply that the Senate, in mid-July was considering passage of the house resolution Congress had already passed.

In the MSNBC report, Senator Olympia Snowe (ME) indicated she wanted an opportunity to review "the" legislation over the August recess. She said she had reminded the president it took a year and a half to create the Medicare system.

I thought it was an interesting side-line that all of a sudden Senators were pretending that they didn't have a bill before the Senate to discuss, as though they never considered the house resolution for passage with a White House imposed deadline of August. It was almost as though, all of a sudden, during town hall meetings, they were trying to say the American people who had been debating the issue of health care reform were ignorant and didn't know what they were talking about because the Senate didn't even have a bill before them yet to read, let alone support. Geesh. The president wanted that house resolution rushed through the Senate and passed. He didn't care if anyone had read it. He didn't care if there was a debate. He simply wanted it passed in August before town hall meetings had even taken place.

Barrett complained in his September 16 article (from the ERLC), that he didn't know what plan Obama was talking about on September 9,

Many of the features he described do not exist in any of the bills Congress is working on. They aren’t in the liberal Democrats’ bills. They aren’t in any bill from the Blue Dog Democrats, who haven’t written one. They aren’t in the Republicans’ bills, and there are at least five that Republicans are trying to get people to notice.

Barrett did, however, deduce, "Evidently, President Obama has a health care reform plan."

It'd be nice to know what it is, wouldn't it? Then the American people wouldn't have to waste so much time trying to nail jell-o to the wall.

Barrett put it this way, in the conclusion of his article,

Obviously, the president has a health care reform plan. So where is it? When do we get to see it? I was encouraged by some of what I heard Wednesday night, but it doesn’t square with anything I’ve seen in Congress so far. Senator Tom Coburn made the same observation. He remarked, “It was a good speech, the problem is that what he wants and what they’ve written are two totally different things.” I agree. So I am looking for a bill that we can read to come from the White House. And here’s hoping that it doesn’t arrive DOA, just like all the current Democrat proposals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JackeHammer's Second-Ever Bullwinkle Award goes to....

Drum roll, please!

This is only the second time JackeHammer has issued a "Bullwinkle Award."

A person qualifies for a bullwinkle award when the actions of the person garner a reaction that is totally unexpected, not predicted, and the exact opposite of what the person set out to accomplish. It's a sort of an award for inadvertant irony, if you will.

The first time I issued a bullwinkle award, back on July 21, 2008, it was issued to radio talk show host and personality Michael Savage for inadvertantly raising autism awareness by making insensitive comments about autism.

I am issuing my second bullwinkle award to President Barack Obama for inadvertantly uniting conservative thinkers across the country as a result of his out of control policy initiatives.

Congrats Mr. President!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read the President's Address to School Children Scheduled for Tuesday

At whitehouse.gov:

Prepared School Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About President Obama's Address to America's Children

I've been listening to the discussion about President Obama's Address to America's children scheduled for Tuesday, September 8. The discussions I've listened to have taken place on the Vincent David Jericho Program on "KSGF" the last couple of mornings. (Wed. and Thurs., podcasts accessible here.)

There were a couple of things that bothered me about the "menus of activity" which had been provided to teachers by "U.S. Department of Education" Secretary Arne Duncan. The "menus" were produced by U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows.

According to "Cato@Liberty," "The administration has now backpedaled from a classic political gaffe and cleaned up the most offensive aspects; asking kids to write about how they can help, explain why its important to listen to political leaders, etc."

The President's address to students is going to be live streaming from the Whitehouse Web site.

Those of you whose schedule will allow you to view it can view it at this Streaming Video link. It will air on Tuesday, September 8, at 12:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This Week at Baptist Press: Boggs Claims Qualities Obama Values on Supreme Court Differ from ADA Guidelines

and home Bible studies no longer threatened in San Diego

In its editorial feature this week, BP editorial columnist Kelly Boggs laid out what he believes are disparities between the American Bar Association's [ABA] "Black Letter Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance" and the criteria President Obama seems to value in Supreme Court Justices. The ABA guidelines, Boggs reported, originated in 1985 and were updated in 2005.

"The "Black Letter Guidelines" make no mention of an effective jurist needing to possess any specific emotive qualities," Boggs wrote. "And while the ABA's guidelines do not mention traits like empathy, caring or understanding, President Obama has made it clear these qualities will be paramount in his selection of jurists for the federal bench."

And, Boggs has a theory as to why Obama values the qualities of empathy, caring and understanding in his Supreme Court nominees:

"If the ABA doesn't bother to mention the emotive qualities of empathy and understanding in its "Black Letter Guidelines," why does President Obama deem them as so sacrosanct? Because he wants Supreme Court justices able to discover "penumbras formed by emanations" in the U.S. Constitution in order to impose a liberal social agenda on Americans."-"Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: Penumbras and emanations"

[For an interesting "TIME" article about "Emanations from a Penumbra," go here, Jack.]

As far as Boggs is concerned, "Feelings of empathy and understanding belong in love songs and romance novels, not in a court of law and certainly not in the Supreme Court."

----------------------------------------------

I remembered some details of this story, or at least its existance, when I read this at "Baptist Press." I don't know if I featured it in the past or not.

Officials in San Diego had issued a cease-and-desist order on a pastor and his wife while attempting to seek their compliance in applying for a permit which might have cost them thousands of dollars. What was interesting about it was, the order was issued because of a home Bible study the couple were hosting in their home. They were ordered to stop hosting the Bible study unless they applied for a permit.

June 5, BP reported San Diego officials have now apologized and rescinded the order:

"In a letter to the Joneses [the pastor and his wife] and Broyles [their attorney] June 3, the county's chief administrative officer said the order was wrongfully issued and the county would conduct a review of its code enforcement officer training."

According to the BP report, the issue was originally raised by a San Diego county official who, apparently, over-zealously sought to categorize the home Bible study as a "religious assembly."

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly and in violation of the code in the county," David Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, told Fox News." -"Baptist Press - Apology issued for S.D. Bible study threat"

You can read both of these "JackeHammer" featured articles at Baptist Press, and much more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Baptist Press (BP): Obama Vindicates Bush Iraq Policy; Boy Receives a Cussing for Starting a No Cussing Club

Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land disagrees with many of President Obama's policies but, was pleased that Obama's recent Iraq speech had 'vindicated' President Bush's Iraq policy.

The BP article discusses Land's reaction to a Wall Street Journal article which quoted Obama's Iraq speech. Land read the editorial during the broadcast of one of his recent radio programs. The BP article quoted Land from that program:

"'... more important than Mr. Obama's implicit repudiation of his own positions as a candidate (and the implicit vindication of Mr. Bush's position, to say nothing of John McCain's)," the editorial said, "is his decision to maintain a sizeable U.S. military presence in Iraq -- in the range of 35,000 to 50,000 troops -- past the August 2010 'withdrawal' date. That 'transitional force' is roughly the size of the U.S. military presence in South Korea through the Cold War. And its mission, involving training of Iraqi forces, U.S. force protection and 'targeted counterterrorism missions,' largely describes what the U.S. is already doing in Iraq....

"'Good for Mr. Obama," Land said after reading part of the president's speech. "I want to give Mr. Obama credit where credit is due. I appreciate that he has acknowledged what our military has done. I applaud him for acknowledging what the Bush administration has handed off to him in Iraq, and that is an opportunity to help stabilize that region with a democratic ally named Iraq."'

In another BP story, Kelly Boggs, a BP weekly columnist and editor of "The Baptist Message," told a story about a 15 year old boy who started a "No Cussing Club."

What will get you cussed more than starting a no cussing club?

Boggs revealed:

"He (McKay Hatch) has received more than 60,000 pieces of hate mail in the past seven weeks and profanity-laced e-mails daily fill his inbox. Teaming with the torrent of written abuse has been scores of threatening voice messages."

Later, Boggs quoted President George Washington:

"'The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low," said George Washington, "that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."'

Based on the abuse Hatch has received for simply starting a no cussing club, which one chooses to voluntarily join, if one joins, there are a lot of people with no sense and character?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's all Trickle Down Economics; The liberal vs conservative ideologies of Obama and Reagan Economics

The difference is in the "trickle down" source, and economic policy does not create moral and ethical deficit

A partisan could find it extremely tempting to simply discredit this Huffington Post article based on the words below:

"Twenty years of Republican administrations have brought our economy to its current condition. We are now both broke, and deeply in debt. To hearken back to David Stockman, it was he who said, back in 1981, ""I'm just not going to spend a lot of political capital solving some other guy's problem in 2010." It's now 2009, and Republicans are refusing to spend any political capital "solving some other guy's problem in 2010". The "other guy" is, of course, Barack Obama, and it's about time Republicans got out of the way, and started trying to help all Americans solve our problems. It ill-becomes the people who created the problems to tell us how to fix them. (In that number I include every Republican Congressman or Senator who obstructs the new administration in its attempt to save the economical lives of all of us.)"

The remark followed Reese Schonfeld's charge of hypocrisy on the part of any Republican who points out a trillion dollars is a lot of money. Schonfeld also scolded the media for not pointing out the hypocrisy of any Republican who questions President Obama's stimulation package.

No doubt, Schonfeld is speaking about the terms of Ronald Reagan, the term of George H. W. Bush and the terms of George W. Bush when he tells the reader, "Twenty years of Republican administrations" have brought our economy to its current condition, and though Schonfeld, earlier, credited George H. W. Bush's tax increase to 39.6% on all income over $250,000 as the cause of the deficit reduction during Bill Clinton's two terms, the last 16 years have been equally presided over by 8 years of a Democrat administration followed by 8 years of a Republican administration. To gloss over Clinton's administration of nearly a decade while analyzing our economy's current condition is simply irresponsible, in my opinion.

But, I'm not going to try to discredit Schonfeld based on that one sentence, and though I don't agree with Schonfeld point by point, the editorial was worthwhile reading.

I found it because I was thinking along some of the same lines that Schonfeld was thinking, only I didn't stop where Schonfeld stopped, and I didn't start out thinking I would demonize one party or the other party as the cause of our nation's economical woes for purely partisan reasons. Being an Independent, I'm not particularly inclined to take sides in partisan discussions. It's one of the reasons I checked out of the Republican party a few years ago. I wanted to make my decisions on issues after viewing both sides of any given issue, choosing the solution or analysis which made the most common sense, and I do think there is some common sense coming from each party on most any given issue.

I was looking at Reagan's "trickle down" theory from a different angle. It seems to me that much of what Obama is offering is trickle down economics. I think he and Reagan have a lot in common in that they both appear to think, and have thought, that by making things easier at the top, it will benefit middle and low income Americans by creating jobs for them. While the ideology is different between a conservative and a liberal, both appear to be coming together on that point. And, while Obama gave lip service to a "trickle up" instead of a "trickle down" solution, before revenue trickles back up, Obama wants to trickle it down from the federal government.

While Ronald Reagan wanted to assist big business and corporate America by cutting taxes, Obama wants to raise taxes on upper income America but, only AFTER handing many of them bail out funds. How is that different from Ronald Reagan's theory? The only difference is how the upper income receives a break. A gift from the government from middle and low income Americans with the thought it will get back to them then, trickle back up? As opposed to lessening government restriction and decreasing taxes to stimulate more money to trickle down then, trickle back up?

Obama promises to increase taxes (government revenue) and decrease spending while, in many cases, bailing out the very upper income people on whom he will be raising taxes, one hand gives and the other hand takes away. Reagan promised to decrease taxes and decrease spending but, both envisioned money from the top trickling down to middle and lower income Americans, thus both could claim stimulation of the economy.

True hypocrisy comes when one party recognizes the hypocrisy of only the other party. What about recognizing the hypocrisy of Democrats who snidely belittled Reagan's trickle down theory and excess spending on the part of Republicans while today calling Republicans hypocrites for not supporting Obama when he is following the Reagan theory through a slightly tweaked method and more spending excess? Where are the cries that trickle down economics doesn't work? No snide belittling? It seems there is enough hypocrisy to go around and we've come full circle.

This simply reinforces my own theory that we all want many of the same things regardless of political party. Some people want to see the economy become healthy through bigger government and more government regulation, others want to see the economy become healthy through less government and less regulation or, through a healthy free market.

Greed isn't created by less government regulation and lower taxes. Greedy people will always be with us, just as the Bible tells us the poor will always be with us. I believe greed is more a societal, human problem. Schonfeld claims Republican (or conservative) ideas of less taxes, smaller government and less governmental regulation spawned greed in the free market and birthed the exorbitant salaries of CEOs. I disagree. People who are greedy will find a way to take advantage of the system, regardless of the system, and regardless of which party put that system in place.

The waters are being muddied by mixing up the legitimate conservative versus liberal ideological solutions to the problems plaguing our economy. We've had 8 years of a Democrat administration followed by 8 years of a Republican administration and there is blame enough and hypocrisy enough to go around but, mixing CEO salaries into the issue, as though that issue was directly caused by less government regulation and lower taxes, as Schonfeld and other partisans have tried to do, will not solve our economic problems. Greed is a societal/moral problem and societal and moral deficits won't be solved by a good economy or a bad economy. Societal and moral deficits do, however, trickle up and down and all around just like money trickles up and down and all around.

Perhaps, if people at all income levels took more individual responsibility and developed more personal, moral integrity it could impact our country at all levels, and not simply economically.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This week at Baptist Press

"Baptist Press (BP)" reported President Obama spoke about honoring the "golden rule," appealing to all faiths that even though they held differing beliefs they could still work together, "to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; (and) to lift up those who have fallen on hard times," at the February 5, National Prayer Breakfast.

BP also quoted Obama as saying, "...no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

According to BP, after Obama's comments, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a written statement, "My deepest prayer is that President Obama will move forward in the spirit of the Golden Rule and embrace policies that affirm the dignity of every human being, especially the most vulnerable of all, the unborn."

It seems Ms. Dannenfelser might be asking Obama to practice what he preaches.

BP reported:

"Obama was an advocate of unlimited abortion rights during his careers in the Illinois and U.S. Senates. Since becoming president, he has issued an executive order reversing a pro-life policy that prevented federal family planning funds from going to international organizations that perform or promote abortion."

> Obama's National Prayer Breakfast remarks

> Ms. Dannenfelser's written statement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~