Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Analysis of the GOP Pledge to America

The GOP Pledge to America is subtitled: “a New Governing Agenda built on The Priorities of Our Nation, the Principles We Stand For, & America’s Founding Values”. Right off the bat, it quotes the Declaration of Independence concerning some of those founding values: “the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Regarding America as not just a country, but an idea, they proceed to assert that “like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own.”
The priorities of our nation, they imply, are more truly reflected in the views they express in the pledge than those of the current administration. They recognize the well-known issues the country faces – joblessness, debt, etc. – and proceed to make somewhat generic pledges that may sound like platitudes to some. But we are still, of course, in the introduction.
One of the most intriguing sentences is this: “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” Conventional wisdom has it that these issues are on the back-burner this election cycle, and that it would be more profitable for the GOP to attract citizens disgusted with the Obama administrations’ economic policies, like the Tea Party, with promises of fiscal responsibility, while leaving such social issues untouched, as some predict that they could be divisive.
Cynically, some may speak of the dominance of the “religious right” in influencing the GOP and thus their pledge. Apparently the GOP is less concerned (at least in this case) with repelling some Tea Party members than leaving out some major concerns of conservative Christians. They go on to reiterate their commitment to this cause in the forward, promising to “permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.”
The rest of the pledge is divided into categories: the economy, government spending, health care, restoring trust in Congress, national security, and checks and balances.

A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive
After the introduction and the forward, the first section of the pledge deals with the economy. It reminds readers of various tax hikes that will go into effect if no legislation is passed to deal with it. The GOP goes onto promise said action to stop taxes from going up. It promises to cut small business taxes and red tape. Repealing the health care bill is also promised here, because of its mandates on businesses.

A Plan to Stop Out of Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government
“Washington’s out-of-control spending spree needs no introduction,” says the first line of this section of the pledge. They promise to return spending to pre-bailout levels (which at least is a start), to end the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and to end government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The following quotation might not go over well: “Unfortunately, Washington Democrats refuse to listen to the American people and eliminate, restrain, or even budget for their out-of-control spending spree.”Many people will remember that Republicans’ spending was out-of-control as well. However, to be fair, our deficit and debt is primarily the result of the last four years of the Democratically-controlled Congress, and most of that during the last two years with a Democrat president.

A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care
The Republicans count the costs of the Obamacare bill as loss of jobs, increased medical costs, more debt and deficits, higher taxes, loss of Medicare coverage for seniors, loss of the ability to choose your own doctor and tax dollars funding abortions.
They pledge to repeal the law, enact “medical liability reform”, allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines, expand health savings accounts, “strengthen doctor-patient relationships” (who knows how?), and “ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions.”
The only one of these promises that concerns me is the last, for this reason: “We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.” First of all, I do not see how this is constitutional. Exactly what business is it of the government’s to decide what an insurance company will offer to its customers? Many people who do not have pre-existing conditions will likely prefer a company that does not offer such coverage, as they will offer cheaper policies, all things equal, due to the fact that they take on less risk. Why should they be denied that choice to go to an insurance company that decides not to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions?

A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust
We have to at least give them credit for trying, right? I doubt that most cynics will be won over by anything that GOP does if they are elected, but maybe I’m just being cynical about the cynics.
Republicans pledge to publish the text of any bill under consideration online at least three days in advance, which may remind people of Nancy Pelosi’s joke of a pledge to run the most transparent and ethical Congress the world has ever known. They also invite scrutiny by pledging to cite the constitutional authority for every bill, which will only mean something to those who actually care about what the Constitution says. Lastly, they promise to consider issues one bill at a time, instead of putting together a package deal.

A Plan to Keep Our Nation Safe at Home and Abroad
The GOP list for national security includes the following: 1) Pass Clean Troop Funding Bills 2) Keep Terrorists Out of America (Keep Guantánamo Bay open) 3) Demand an Overarching Detention Policy 4) Fully Fund Missile Defense (my favorite) 5) Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions against Iran 6) Establish Operational Control of the Border 7) Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws (which sounds to me like not stopping Arizona from enforcing actual immigration law) and 8) Strengthen Visa Security

I have only two issues with the pledge. The first is the promise to make it illegal to deny coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. The second is that they seem to be unwilling to deal with the two elephants in the room: Social Security and Medicare. They will be issues shortly whether anyone wants them to be or not. That is most important issue to spending. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to be unwilling to take a stand here. Maybe they plan to deal with it, but they don’t want to blow their chances at taking back the House and maybe the Senate by taking an unpopular position. I hope that that is why they mostly ignored it.
I do not have an issue with the vagueness of some of it. They will have to deal with political realities that exist when they take control.
Finally, it is up to us, the people to keep them honest and keeping their promises. To quote the GOP pledge: “In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed.”

5 comments:

  1. While I have issues with most of it, for various reasons, in regards to the issuing insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

    Ponder this if you will, the term "socialized medicine" gets tossed out with a negative connotation and yet, every community I know of has a socialized police, fire, emergency response system, sanitation, trash etc.

    These are all services to the public, necessary services which insure the continuity of the community and in some cases save lives, or ensure the well being of it's citizens. Why is it then that we deal with health care in the concept of "insuring against risk" ? Why is it that health care is a business and not a public service? Everyone at some point in life needs health care of some form or another. To deny anyone access to health care because their life was voted to be less important, whether it's because they have a pre-existing condition or simply because they are poor, to me seems like an obvious injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would suggest you read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, especially Chapter 2: The Role of Government in a Free Society. That explains, I think correctly, what should be a business and what should be a public service. Also, the issue I took with the pledge was the idea of making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. I never said anything for or against a "public service" to cover those people (however, if you understand the definition of a "public service", creating one specifically to cover those people is a contradiction in terms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, in response to the last paragraph I saw on Facebook that I don't see on here: the system is obviously broken. I don't deny that. I simply don't think every suggestion is a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We don't deal with health care in the concept of "insuring against risk". We deal with health care insurance. It does not ensure health, only that anything covered in the policy will be covered for anyone who pays the premium. All insurance companies take on risk, taking it away from their customers. It is not a health risk; it is the risk they will need care too expensive to cover up front and they don't want to do a payment plan. Approximately 15% of health care in hospitals is provided to people who do not have insurance. They aren't being denied coverage; they simply must compensate for it in a different way (than paying premiums to their insurance agency). We already have socialized medicine in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. They are trillions of dollars in the red, because they extraordinarily inefficient and expensive (owing to the fact that changing incentives changes behavior). Before we socialize any more medicine, I suggest we find out if there are ways we can make health care (and insurance) more affordable to people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician rather than the professor of metaphysics." - Edmund Burke

    ReplyDelete