State of the Union

As I was busy last night, I unfortunately missed President Obama's State of the Union address. My goal is to watch it this weekend and have a post by Tuesday. For now, you can just read this. It's not a comprehensive summary of the speech, but it takes a good look at one of the aspects of the speech.

Money Talk

I won't repeat everything this NY Times post says, but basically it says that the Senate will vote this week on the possibility of creating a commission focused on finding ways to reduce the deficit. In some ways, I totally agree with this, but I do have reservations about it.

Spending is definitely a problem in our government, and not just now, it has been for a while. In recent years, the federal deficit has grown immensely, especially in with the 'bailouts' that have been given. This graph shows the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP starting with the Hoover presidency. "Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out," Stephen Stoft wrote under the graph. 

To end the Great Depression, the federal government started huge spending projects to stimulate the economy and give people jobs, much like they have attempted during the current recession. However, the difference between those projects and those of today is the fact that Roosevelt's New Deal helped revive the country from a horrible economy, where unemployment was much higher than the dreaded 10% that we hear about today. 

Today, the NY Times also reported that Obama, in his State of the Union Address, will call for a freeze in many federal spending programs. Once again, I am so happy that the government at least seems to be acknowledging the fact that they spend way too much money! However, the deal that Obama is proposing will only cut a tiny fraction of the spending that is expected in the years that it will be in effect. And somehow, at the same time as this freeze occurs, the government wants to be able to provide more services...

Healthcare? How can health care reform be achieved if the government is truly dedicated to cutting spending and reducing the deficit? That makes absolutely no sense, unless someone in the government is named Alexander Hamilton. 

Game Changer

The healthcare debate has just been thrown a curveball. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters chose republican Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U.S. senate. Brown will be the only republican in Congress from the largely democratic state. For Massachusetts, his election means that their state healthcare program will have a better chance of being left alone. A new federal plan would likely disrupt the program that Brown helped to install in Massachusetts.

Brown, a former model, will be the 41st republican in the senate, disrupting the democratic control over a filibuster by the republicans. There have been rumors that the democrats would possibly rush a vote on healthcare reform before Brown gets sworn-in, but nothing has happened yet, and nothing should. If the Senate were to pass a health care bill in the next few days, just before the Massachusetts senator-elect were to be seated, the bill would be tainted. Who wants a health care bill that only 99 senators were able to vote on. The state of Massachusetts probably doesn't even want a federal healthcare bill, as they already have a state-wide system.

Congress has been debating healthcare for months now, and it seems as if President Obama may finally be expressing some anger that nothing has happened. In the days leading up to the election, Obama pleaded with the voters and with the democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to preserve the democratic control in Congress. The New York Times said yesterday,

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was "not pleased" with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. "He was both surprised and frustrated," Mr. Gibbs said.

Of course Obama would be frustrated! The center of his campaign was healthcare, and nothing has been done! I would be mad too, but apparently the people of Massachusetts were mad enough to vote in a republican who would staunchly oppose democratic healthcare plans.

Sides of the Healthcare Debate

There were a few things in today's paper that caught my eye today. I try to read the political articles, but more often than not, I skip them. Because they're boring. I'll be honest; they can be really boring. That is, unless they're not. Like the opinion piece on healthcare with comments from both Iowa senators: democrat Tom Harkin and republican Chuck Grassley.


For the most part, the Harkin side of the page was about all the ways that a health care bill would be good for everybody. Mostly that meant that people who don't have healthcare would get it and everything would be all perfect! However, there was absolutely no mention of the costs of the bill, what it would cost people who already have healthcare. Mr. Harkin, I would like to know these figures so that I can weigh the pros and cons of the bill. Please don't try to make me seem stupid by only giving me the positives. (That don't really affect me anyway)

On the other side of the page, our Iowa senator Chuck Grassley made hardly any mention of the benefits of a health care bill, and instead took the financial approach. He made it clear that the bill would cost billions of dollars, adding huge amounts to our already huge deficit!

So there are two issues that I see with this article

First: do we really need a healthcare bill if it's going to cost so much, and mostly benefit only the people without healthcare?

Second: the party divisions around this bill (and every other) is astounding. Just look at the two Iowa senators- they rarely vote with each other on a big bill. Every time I look in the paper at the Congress votes, it's always all the democrats on one side and all the republicans on the other. That is such a shame that two senators, who are supposed to be representing the state of Iowa either can't agree on what the people of this state need, or they simply vote with their party.

I wish our leaders would make decisions that mattered to their constituents, not their parties.