WHO ARE THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS AND WHY DO THEY MATTER

When the Democrats won the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and secured their majority in the House of Representative by an even wider margin in 2008, many of my Democrat friends figured that this was the end of dealing with the Republicans. With the recent addition of Al Franken, aka Stuart Smally, to the U.S. Senate, those same Dems gleefully announced that they were now unstoppable. Legislation could be pushed through the House with no need to compromise with the God-awful Republicans, the Senate would have the 60 votes needed to override any attempts at a filibuster and President Obama would certainly sign anything put up by his fellow Democrats. If only it were that easy.

In an earlier post, I warned all of you about the very powerful, 100% Democrat, Jewish Caucus, along with the many other caucuses. In addition, in other posts, I've told you about traitorous RINOs and DINOs. In this post, I'll explain the role of the Blue Dog Democrats, particularly in the recent Heath care reform. But first, I want to briefly explain something to any of you laymen out there. Both of the major parties here in the U.S. have their little subsets. There are moderate Democrats and Republicans, Pro-life Democrats, Pro-choice Republicans, Republican Feminists, Fiscal Conservative Democrats, Pro-union Republicans, Pro-gun Democrats, and even Gay Republicans called the Log Cabin Republicans. Even though both parties have their basic platforms, the complexities of regional politics can make some strange combinations. To assume that having a majority in the House or Senate gives you Carte Blanche to do whatever you want would be a misnomer.

Now for the Blue Dogs.

To quote their site, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public." On that part you should read, "Not Liberals". But being a Blue dog is really more about a "deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States." On that you should read, "We don't like Debt." Unlike the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue dogs do not believe in printing money and handing it out to whoever needs it. They want a way of paying for it. Currently there are 51 members of the Blue Dogs and they are creating quite a problem for the Liberals.

Part of that problem is that the Blue Dogs know that the Liberal wing is lying through their botox-laden mouths about the cost of the Health Care Reform they're promoting. By not limiting what they're asking for to something do-able, the Liberals have loaded up the bill with health care for illegal immigrants, money for abortions, and a thousand other "extras" that the Blue Dogs feel (along with most Republicans) is simply too much to pay for. (It should be noted here that President Obama says there will be no health care for adult illegals) The Liberals are drawing a line in the sand on some of these issues. Health Care for illegals would ease the burden on states like California by pushing the cost onto the Federal level. This would also assure them the continuing support of the Hispanic population and maybe even help them to turn some states Democrat. Federal dollars for abortions is an issue that the feminist wing of the Democrats have been in a tug-of-war with Republicans over for decades. The Blue Dogs are simply too traditional and fiscally conservative to accept either of these additions.

As the Health Care Reform legislation plods it's way through the various committees in the House and is sure to be sent back by the Senate to reconcile once it's passed (IF it's ever passed), you can be sure the Blue Dog Dems will be a major part of problem the House will have to deal with. My reading on all of this is that the Bill looks very likely to die due to lack of any consensus on what it should look like. For those of you that thought my idea of simple catastrophic coverage didn't go far enough, prepare to see how a complicated bill, that's easy to divide people on, dies on the floor as the Blue Dogs, with lots of help from anti-abortionists, fiscal conservatives, and a host of others, rips it to shreds. H.C.

RUSH LIMBAUGH BACKS H.C.'S HEALTH CARE PLAN

*Flash news update, July 22,2009*

Back in March, I suggested a Health Care Plan that wouldn't bankrupt our country, could be supported by both parties, and would be a path towards ending some of the biggest problems facing the uninsured. To my suprise, Rush Limbaugh suggested the exact same idea on his show today, July 22, 2009.

To quote Rush Limbaugh himself from his "Stack of Stuff",

"By the way, I mentioned earlier that what ought to be really insured -- talking about health insurance here -- is catastrophic care. If we're going to have a health care program and we're going to have reform, let's just do that and have people in the free market buy whatever other insurance policies they want for the day-to-day trip to the doctor, tonsillitis, whatever it is. But catastrophic stuff that could wipe you out. "Well, let's have insurance." Okay, let's do that."

Me and Rush on the same page. HMMM, maybe I am leaning too far right. H.C.

AMERICA LIMPS TOWARD BANKRUPTCY

The year is 1991 and the country of Hungary is restructuring itself after the fall of the Soviet Empire. The scars that are left on Hungary's people include a dependency on a paternal government. The Soviet Union provided a generous social safety net coupled with harsh penalties for those caught cheating. When Hungary became independent, the people clung to their safety net, but they wanted it without the harsh tactics and punishments of the communists. The politicians, being politicians, promised the people whatever they wanted, no matter how dire a future it might create. What happened over the next 15 years would destroy the fledgling country and force it into bankruptcy. I now fear the same thing will happen here, in the United States of America.

Hungary's system was set up, as ours is, to provide for people in their old age and to help those that were too disabled to work. When Hungary was released from communism's grasp, the average age of it's disabled and retired people was 62, it is now 48. The politicians, smelling a good issue, promised more and more to a constituency that grew large as more and more of them joined the government disabled list. One politician even went so far as to promise and then deliver a "13th month" of pay for the retired and disabled. Politicians that opposed adding onto the programs were run over by the large constituency and simply lost. Soon 10 million of Hungary's 30 million people we're no longer working and the burden on the government grew and grew as did the taxes on those stupid enough to continue working. Because of the burden on the masses, people spent less, invested less, and saved less. Soon the outgoing money vastly surpassed the money coming in and Hungary fell in to the deep, dark pit of bankruptcy. It is now hanging on only with loans from the International Monetary Fund and is struggling to get it's people to understand the cuts and changes it must make to survive.

The United States is now heading down the exact same path.

As the "Baby Boomers" age, a great deal of them are finding themselves without pensions and without retirement funds. With no money or health insurance and with a declining economy squeezing them out of the workplace, many of them are turning to exaggerating their health problems. With liberalism taking a strong hold, particularly in the Social Services sector, claims for disability are being granted without much contesting. Word gets out fast and with the help of the Internet, aging boomers are working their way into the system and onto the disabled list.

Here in Michigan, we are especially hard hit by the sagging economy. We are now at 15.2% unemployment, the highest in the nation, and on pace to break all unemployment records dating back to the Great Depression. This has created even more incentive for people to game the system and the results are in. Over the past ten years, the amount of people on public insurance that are under 65 in Michigan has increased from 11% to 22% according to the Wall Street Journal. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we cannot continue to fund these increases. The state of Michigan is now $1.4 billion in the red with another $2 billion owed the Feds for just unemployment benefits. Michigan has 1.84 million people on some sort of Social Security and with the Baby Boomers entering retirement age that number is sure to go up. We now have 274,000 people in Michigan on disability and that number is climbing the fastest of any group requesting Social Security assistance. With increased disability claims, an aging Baby boomer population, increased National Debt liabilities and decreasing GDP, it's hard to see a way out. When the amount of people on Social Security crosses 33%, it will take 2 people to cover the costs of 1 Social Security recipient. If we don't find a way to stop these increases, it's hard to see how this country will survive having both that kind of debt load and that percentage of a constituency that will refuse any cuts. Move over, Hungary, the U.S. is right behind you, following your lead. H.C.

FEMINISM TAKES A GIANT STEP BACKWARD

I'm a feminist. That's right, you don't need to read it over and over to make sure your eyes and brain didn't suddenly become disconnected. I know it's true because I have a friend who's a confirmed feminist and she told me so. Heather, (I didn't get permission to use her last name.) is a professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at the University where I work and is soon to become the head of our Women's Gender Studies. She gave me a flash quiz. Do I believe in equal rights for women? "Yep." Equal pay for equal work? "Yep." Am I against discrimination against women? "Yep." Do I support an Equal Rights Amendment? "Yep." With the authority granted to her by virtue of her education and gender she decreed me a feminist.

Now that we were in the same camp, I thought I would throw out a little test to see if we were really on the same page. "Heather," I queried, "Do you think Sarah Palin was the victim of sexism?" Her forehead squinched downward and her eyes became steely. "God, yes!" she practically shouted. "Do you really think they would have brought up her daughter's pregnancy if she were a man? Do you think they would have judged her clothes? Do you really think they would have compared a man to a slutty stewardess?" "Ummm, maybe Bill Clinton." I offered.

I was a tad taken back. Heather is as confirmed a Democrat as she is a Feminist. "Doesn't it matter to you that she's a Republican?" I questioned. "You don't stop having rights as a woman just because you picked the wrong Party." She answered grinning.

This got me thinking. How is it that the Democratic Party has gotten away with engaging in the most openly sexist attack on a woman I have seen since O.J. killed Nicole?

The truth is, I have been protecting Sarah Palin since the very first day she showed up on the scene and here's why. I believe that every single person in this country, man or woman, black, white or brown should have the opportunity to become all that their talents will allow them to become. I believe women have more to contribute to this country than being a housewife or a mother, although I believe both of those jobs are enormously important. I believe they should have the right to control their own body, a right I extend to everyone. I believe they have the right to hold high office and I believe they have the right to be given the same respect that would be given to a man, if they can do the same job.

And that's where I differ from my Democrat friends.

They believe you only get those rights if your a Democrat. They too believe that women can be something other than a mother or a housewife, but if you should choose either of those very honorable professions, you are not fulfilling your destiny, and are less of a woman for it. They believe that a woman should have choices, but if you choose to believe that abortion is wrong, you don't deserve the choice. They believe true women are animal activists, not hunters. They should be engineers, not PTA moms. They believe real women marry men who wear Khakis, drive a Prius and like to shop, not men who wear flannels, drive a truck and like to fish. On every level Sarah Palin violated that stereotype, and that infuriated them.

So they attacked her family, they attacked her clothes, they attacked her values, they attacked her culture, they attacked her accent, they attacked her beloved state, and when all else failed, they used their lawyers to bankrupt her. Finally, tired of it all, she retreated from public life and gave up her job of Governor of Alaska that she had fought so hard to get, both as a woman, and as a person.

To all you female Democrats out there who reveled in the destruction of Sarah Palin, I have a warning. Freedom is more than the right to abort a fetus.It's more than the right to vote. It's more than the right to become a doctor or a engineer or a Vice President. Freedom is about the right to choose your own destiny, by virtue of your own choices. If your choices are restricted to only the ones that the Democratic Party gives you, you really don't have choices at all, and you are once again in a "comfortable concentration camp." H.C.

THE BEST HEALTH CARE ON EARTH?

The claim made by a lot of people in the U.S. is that despite all it's faults, our health care is still the "Best health care on Earth". As the debate heats up in Congress about what to do about our uninsured, I thought I would try a different approach this time around to address my feelings about our flawed system.

I have addressed this issue before in my post "Tax the Rich", which brought me the ire of my right-leaning friends, and more recently in my post "The Universal Health Care Program No One Wants" which managed to piss off some of my left-leaning friends. This time around I'm going to take it to a personal level. I have warned you all before that "exampling" or pointing out an example proves nothing more than that something happened once. It's not a great way to make your point and is usually used by people who want you to react emotionally instead of looking at the facts. But, since I've already covered some of the facts in my previous posts, I though I could be forgiven for bringing the issue back home and personal.

The first time I really noticed the difference in having coverage or not was when I was in my twenties. My wife's brother Dave had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. He didn't have much of a problem getting a doctor to diagnose him, that part can be done in an emergency room or by a doctor willing to take payments. This is the part of our system that Republicans usually trumpet as "the health care everyone gets" after all, they'll tell you, "no one is denied treatment if they show up at the hospital door." What they don't want you to know, particularly if you have health coverage and don't know any different, is that that is only for the diagnosis, not the surgery or the treatment. Once you have been diagnosed as having a major health issue, everything changes. You can show up at the hospital a thousand times, and they'll simply tell you, "You have cancer, you need to find a surgeon." and send you home. Once Dave had been diagnosed, the long fight to find a surgeon willing to work on him with no coverage began. He went to Social Services who sent him to a doctor with a long waiting list. He tried to find another doctor, but each one simply pushed him off with delays, telling him he first needed to see if Medicaid would cover it (nope) then tried to push him through different Social Programs that he didn't qualify for because he had worked his whole life. Each effort to find coverage extends the delays. Finally, after three months, a surgery was scheduled. Prior to the surgery, Dave got another chest X-Ray, the news was very bad. During the three months, his cancer had spread throughout his body. Surgery was canceled and three months later he died. Leaving a wife and two kids. He was never once "denied", simply pushed over and over to the very back of the line.

Some time after that, I was diagnosed with cancer. During a visit for a lump on my abdomen (which was benign), the doctor was showing off his new ultra-sound machine and found a lump that wasn't benign. This happened on a Thursday and thankfully I had good Health Care from my job. On Monday of that very next week I was in surgery. By the end of that week I was in radiation treatment. There was not one delay and within 7 weeks I was done with my treatments and on the road to recovery. I asked my Oncologist what would have happened if I would have had no insurance like my Brother-in-law Dave? His response was chilling, "You wouldn't be here getting the treatment your getting now."

Fast forward to this year. I am now watching my daughter fight for her health with a system designed to provide her with nothing. Nine months ago she was diagnosed with an enlarged thyroid (again, getting diagnosed is not the problem.). The lump on her throat was the size of a acorn and only visible when she raised her chin. She has fought with Medicaid, who again refused her because she has a job (One social service worker suggested she quit.) She has tried to find help through the state, which has pushed her further back saying, "Our budgets are tight, programs no longer have the funding." She has scheduled with three doctors for the surgery, each one giving her dates months down the road and then canceling them at the last minute. Her last attempt got her all the way to surgery door only to have it canceled at the last minute because the doctor forgot to give her medication necessary before the surgery. Again the new date is months away. In desperation she is trying a new doctor who happened to hear of her plight and is willing to help. We're all praying it works out this time. Her lump is now the size of a half an apple and easily visible. She is a single mom with two kids who has worked her entire life.

During the arguments for and against revamping our health care system, a lot of lies and over statements are going to be made on both sides. But I want to lay one lie to rest. The one that, "Everyone gets treatment in America, no one is turned away." While there may be truth in the wording, the real truth is health care for those that are covered is quick and timely. For those that don't have it, it's a battle to stay alive until they can squeeze you in. Children are losing their mothers, sisters are losing their brothers, let's not candy-coat it with some distortion. The argument is that a Universal Health Care Program will result in people waiting for months for a knee replacement. Well, to them I have an answer. It's already happening, just not to you, and for things far more serious than a bum knee.H.C.