The myth of health care "reform"

Since the health care bill has become law, many people have talked about the "new health system" in America. Even President Obama has referred to the law as if it is somehow reshaping the current health system. This is just not true. The types of health reform candidate Obama campaigned on and eventually enacted promised to leave those with insurance alone. The bill only streamlines the current system by creating exchanges, preventing abuses by insurance companies and extending coverage. The largest component of it is the mandate for having insurance. None of these provisions significantly alter the fundamental way in which health care is obtained in America.

Don't we all support small businesses?

A study done by the National Center for Policy Analysis has the current health care law negatively impacting the incentives for small businesses to hire more workers. This is likely due to the provision which provides a 50% tax credit for businesses with less than 10 employees, who make an average of $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are hired. This naturally gives an incentive to keep businesses small. Why is this a bad thing? Local businesses do wonders for both working conditions and community development. Small businesses are run by locals, who keep most of the earnings in the community. This stimulates the local economy and keeps the wages of the management from skyrocketing out of proportion. In terms of the health care law, small businesses are the ones who need the most assistance with providing health coverage, and do wonders for the local community.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

It is official. Arlen Specter, who has served as Pennsylvania's senator since 1980, has lost the Democratic nomination to congressman Joe Sestak. This is very significant. Arlen Specter, since switching to the Democratic Party, has received the endorsement of many prominent Democrats. These endorsements include numerous local mayors all the way up to President Barack Obama. Many have been commenting that this proves an endorsement from the White House means absolutely nothing. Indeed, Obama campaigned with Specter earlier this year and many ads have featured his support. The question nobody is asking is: is the White House making the wrong endorsements?

Arlen Specter won the support of the Administration for several reasons. They needed his 60th vote for health care reform at its most critical stages, and knew he would not switch parties without firm White House support. Furthermore the White House clearly does not want to anger him by remaining neutral, as he might change his liberal voting record he has accumulated since his party switch. Finally, Arlen Specter is an old Senate buddy of Obama.

What we do know is, the White House has made a huge miscalculation here. The electorate is clearly frustrated with Arlen Specter and not impressed by his blatant political maneuvering. If the Obama Administration wants the 2010 midterm elections to turn out as an anti-incumbent year rather than an anti-Democrat one they should heed the will of the voters. Joe Sestak polls better against Republican nominee Pat Toomey than does Specter, therefore should have been a natural choice for a WH endorsement.

We will see how this dynamic plays out in the Arkansas Democratic primary currently in progress. More on what's going on in Arkansas later tonight.

Financial reform is an issue of unique agreement

This is strange. The financial reform bill has moved through the upper chamber with no GOP filibusters whatsoever. Many of the amendments, such as the Audit the Fed measure, have garnered near universal backing. The amendment in question passed the Senate 96-0. This is unheard of. During the health care debate, amendments were filibustered just to slow down the process. Furthermore, the bill has become more and more liberal as it has passed through the upper chamber. The health care and climate change bills, in contrast, become significantly more conservative when moving through the Senate. This is true of most legislative proposals. So my question is, what has changed?

The atmosphere certainly has not changed. Republicans are emboldened by the Democratic Party's dropping poll numbers and have been opposing Obama's agenda more than ever. I think the difference is the issue. The public is extremely angry over the greed of wall street, and headlines saying the GOP is obstructing wall street reform don't fly very well. Harry Reid made a uniquely good calculation by forging ahead without Republican votes. Earlier this month, when the motion to begin debate came up, the Republicans filibustered a total of three times before breaking. It seems the "liberal" media won them out once again.