October 17, 2008

What to expect from the Democrat supermajority

The GOP has no one to blame for the coming series of events but themselves; however, as I stated in a previous post, an Obama presidency could serve to reinvigorate the GOP as never before -- especially if what the Wall St. Journal opines today becomes reality. Let's take a gander at a few of the items:

Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

Being the non-lawyer lover of constitutional law that I am, I am wondering how Congress could permit the DC delegates to cast votes that count. Aren't only representatives of states permitted that right? Would a constitutional amendment be necessary? Would a law allowing ex-felons to vote be challenged at the SCOTUS as an infringement on states' rights?

Even if Congress (and Obama) get away with just these two items, just consider the ramifications for 2010. Just imagine the campaign commercials for GOP House and Senate candidates: "Democrats have all the power in Washington. And what do they do with it? Give felons the right to vote. Why would they do that? For the same reasons they are against showing identification before you vote, and against allowing election boards to verify voters' eligibility to actually vote."

Or, "The Democrats are drunk on their newfound power in Washington. What did they do once they got this power? Try to increase their power even more by allowing delegates from Washington DC (and other territories) -- which are not states -- to cast binding votes in the House."

Then there's the issue that blew away Bill Clinton's Democratic Congress back in 1994:

When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

Perhaps Obama and the Dems should take a gander at what happened in Hawaii. They had to ditch "universal childcare" because -- what a surprise -- it became too expensive and overcrowded:

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

It never is, Dr. Fink. But that's what tends to happen when you offer something for "free." Now, apply that to a national level and we'll have what the WSJ stated above -- higher taxes AND rationed care. Long waits for an office visit. Even longer for a specialist. Triage-like decisions for operations. The horror stories from nationalized healthcare countries (like Canada and England) are endless.

Posted by Hube at October 17, 2008 04:32 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

The election isn't over yet.

Posted by: rightwingprof at October 18, 2008 08:04 AM

No shit. I'm paying a friggin fortune for health care. I damn well would stop paying for it if it were "free". I might as well stop paying my mortgage so I can qualify for this bailout.

Posted by: Duffy at October 20, 2008 08:26 AM