The next few questions had to do with Mr. Johnson's agenda specifically dealing with the implementation on the local and/or state level. In order to discuss this, Mr. Johnson first gave me a short review of the state government structure which I will now relay to you.
Every state, except Nebraska, has a mirror replica of the federal government. Nebraska, however, has adopted a unicameral Congress, since ultimately, the power to establish the state governments is Constitutionally left to the states. In most states, Congress is divided into a Lower and Upper House, rather than using the conventional terms of Senate and House. In Texas, however, we mirror the federal terminology of Congress as well. There are 31 Senators and 150 Representatives in Austin, one of the largest state government's in the entire nation.
Texas mimics the federal government in other patterns as well. The House must be the first to adopt a budget plan, and the Governor must sign the budget deal in order for it to go in effect. The budget primarily oversees all state agencies, such as the State Department of Health and Human Services, the Texas Department of Transportation, and other similar agencies, along with the public universities such as Texas A&M.
In Texas, the government is in session in Austin every other year, or every odd year to be more precise. The session is from January to May, and after 140 days, the session must end no matter at what point they are or how much they have accomplished. This structure was put in place to limit the amount of action state governments could take. The only way to extend the session, which does frequently happen, is if the governor calls a special session which can only be done for specific issues. These sessions last for 20 days extra at a time. Because of the time limits, Texas Congress is generally inefficient at acting until the last two months of session, when the political pressure truly piles on.
In the off-session period, Congressmen and women will receive assignments in a Standing Committee, AKA an Interim Charge. In these committees, a Congressperson will receive a specific issue on which they will spend their interim time studying and detailing out, so that when Congress is back in session in two years, they will be able to present on it. They are not allowed to study or draw bills external to their assigned issue. These committees occur essentially during the even years, when Congress is not in session.
Although state governments have many responsibilities at their respective level, many citizens will frequently ask about an issue that is out of their politicians reach - for example, health care, which is primarily a federal legislation, is something that states will have little control over (provided that the opt-out provision does not pass, as I explained earlier this week). Although it is still out of his jurisdiction, if Mr. Johnson is elected, he will still be responsible for properly directing individuals to the correct office for dealing with the health care issue. He cannot simply push them away, and sometimes, he may even be forced to help that individual with their form process.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Mr. Johnson #1 - Political Theory
One of the first topics that Mr. Johnson and I discussed was his experience in high school, and how this affected his career in politics. I carelessly asked him why he is a "liberal", and upon immediately realizing my extrapolated assumptions, Mr. Johnson gave me a unique perspective on differing political views.
The first term he identified was "Democrat". The Democratic Party has existed for over two centuries, and was constructed as a fundamental basis for a set of political ideals. Although the term is closely identified today with the term liberal, the political party as a whole has vastly changed since its formal introduction in the United States. The term under Andrew Jackson, for example, initiated several nuances in the party, such as the concept of a whig or a Jacksonian Democrat. Despite the parallels one may see between a Democrat and a liberal, the terms are fundamentally independent; the Democratic party, according to Mr. Johnson, is simply a platform for which to launch a political agenda. For Mr. Johnson, the Democratic county of District 100 of Texas best satisfies his agenda priorities.
As opposed to a political party, Mr. Johnson construed liberalism as having to do more with the fundamentals of a political ideology. It is the philosophy by which all government action for an individual is filtered through. In the context of health care, for example, the liberalist ideology is extremely biased towards a more activist and equalizing government, which health care reform is all about. The easiest way I was able to understand the difference is that while Democrat should be viewed as a subject, Liberalism should be viewed as the direct or indirect object - ie, the fundamental goal of a policymaker.
Lastly, Mr. Johnson opened up discussion on a distinct term - progressivism. As opposed to liberalism or Democrat, I view this term more as a verb, since Mr. Johnson explained of it having to do more with the application and specific implementation of a (most likely liberal) agenda. He characterized it with an example from environmental legislation. Although a liberal agenda may attempt to seriously control carbon dioxide emissions, it is politically divisive in attempting to do so. Instead, a progressive agenda would find ways to make this goal more politically palatable by making effective compromises and negotiations in order to pass legislation in a timely manner.
You may think that you are too good for a simple explanation of these generic political terms. But lets face it - with a public as naive as ours, restating the basics of political theory can only ensure clarity in public discussions.
**Note
Although Mr. Johnson was the inspirational factor in writing all of these short analyses, the blogs are still my extrapolations of his phrasing and my own understanding of the issues at hand. They, in no way, are necessarily representational of his own beliefs.
The first term he identified was "Democrat". The Democratic Party has existed for over two centuries, and was constructed as a fundamental basis for a set of political ideals. Although the term is closely identified today with the term liberal, the political party as a whole has vastly changed since its formal introduction in the United States. The term under Andrew Jackson, for example, initiated several nuances in the party, such as the concept of a whig or a Jacksonian Democrat. Despite the parallels one may see between a Democrat and a liberal, the terms are fundamentally independent; the Democratic party, according to Mr. Johnson, is simply a platform for which to launch a political agenda. For Mr. Johnson, the Democratic county of District 100 of Texas best satisfies his agenda priorities.
As opposed to a political party, Mr. Johnson construed liberalism as having to do more with the fundamentals of a political ideology. It is the philosophy by which all government action for an individual is filtered through. In the context of health care, for example, the liberalist ideology is extremely biased towards a more activist and equalizing government, which health care reform is all about. The easiest way I was able to understand the difference is that while Democrat should be viewed as a subject, Liberalism should be viewed as the direct or indirect object - ie, the fundamental goal of a policymaker.
Lastly, Mr. Johnson opened up discussion on a distinct term - progressivism. As opposed to liberalism or Democrat, I view this term more as a verb, since Mr. Johnson explained of it having to do more with the application and specific implementation of a (most likely liberal) agenda. He characterized it with an example from environmental legislation. Although a liberal agenda may attempt to seriously control carbon dioxide emissions, it is politically divisive in attempting to do so. Instead, a progressive agenda would find ways to make this goal more politically palatable by making effective compromises and negotiations in order to pass legislation in a timely manner.
You may think that you are too good for a simple explanation of these generic political terms. But lets face it - with a public as naive as ours, restating the basics of political theory can only ensure clarity in public discussions.
**Note
Although Mr. Johnson was the inspirational factor in writing all of these short analyses, the blogs are still my extrapolations of his phrasing and my own understanding of the issues at hand. They, in no way, are necessarily representational of his own beliefs.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Mr. Eric Johnson Series
Following this special occasion, I will be posting a series of blogs related to Mr. Johnson, information regarding his general campaign, and the political process as it relates to the state level.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
It's all about Snowe this Christmas
Despite being the only person in Congress (both in the Senate and the House) to compromise with Democrats and vote for a version of the health care legislation, Snowe (R, Maine) has signaled her opposition to the new compromise bill being put forth by Harry Reid. The compromise would effectively give each individual state the ability to opt-out of the public option if it so desires. However, Snowe's hard-stance refusal shows her unwillingness to step an inch past her current concession on health care - regardless of the weakness behind any public option, she has reined in her liberal side for this issue.
For those of us worried that she was about to pull an Arlen Specter, we can take a breath of relief.
Snowe is not alone, however. Lieberman (I, Connecticut) has also expressed skepticism over the opt-out provision. In an economic state such as ours, any Senator should be; allowing the federal government to take-over such a core component of health care - the insurance industry - will amount to a government corporation that can avoid the pitfalls of the marketplace. The independents are correct to be fearful - or as the Associate Press puts it:
Moderate Democrats...fear a public plan could drive insurers out of business and take over the marketplace...The one Republican who has so far lent her support to Democratic health overhaul proposals, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, said she was "deeply disappointed" by Reid's decision. Snowe had supported allowing government insurance in individual states only if the private market wasn't providing sufficient choice and competition. Among the moderates whose support is in question are Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Landrieu said in a statement that she's still "very skeptical" about a government plan run from Washington but would keep working with Reid to find a "principled compromise. "Nelson "is not committing how we will vote regarding any proposal Sen. Reid is advancing," said spokesman Jake Thompson. Lincoln, who's up for re-election in 2010, said through a spokesman she intends to study the details and decide how to vote based on the impact on her home state.
If liberals decide to go for it all and retain the public option, they will find themselves in a political showdown with Senator Snowe. Democrats have already tripped her up once, and she doesn't seem to want to be put in the same situation once again. Before the new year, we will see Senator Snowe really stick it to the Democrats the way the GOP base wants her to. It will probably Snowe this Christmas - but if it does, it definitely won't be fluffy and white.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Got Reid? Get Real.
In a recent news release on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada) has opined his strong support for the public option as it makes its way back into discussions surrounding the Senate bill. His use of rhetoric is undoubtedly skillful, but there remains large skepticism about the truth behind his claims - namely, whether the public option can, in fact, force competition and accountability by the private health insurance industry. It seems fundamentally the opposite. Shouldn't government "take-overs" of any private market actually serve to undermine competition? After all, the government functions for the word of politicians, not to fill any profit margins. Shouldn't the fact that Amtrak and UPS - both government entities of a generally private sector of the economy - were, for the most part, utter failures lend credence to anyone who opposes the public option?
This isn't to say that there aren't actually valid justifications for a single-payer health care system. Yet, most of these advantages lay uncovered, and with the major non partisan governmental body (namely, the Congressional Budget Office) showing unwavering skepticism to Obama's agenda, the bar has been raised for the liberals in Congress. Mr. Hoff, of the Heritage Foundation, expresses the point with utter clarity:
Advocates of the government insurance plan assure us that it would compete with private insurers on a level playing field. In reality, the "competition" would be rigged, with the government plan enjoying a number of advantages.As a result, the government plan would likely capture a large percentage of the insurance market, marginalizing and undermining private insurance. For example, the Lewin Group estimates that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act,[2] the health reform bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives, would reduce the number of Americans with private insurance by 83.4 million and that the new public plan would cover 103.4 million people.[3] Coupled with the federal regulatory system that the legislation would impose on the remaining private plans, this would clearly by itself constitute a government takeover of health care.Even worse, the federal takeover would accelerate. The private plans' relatively small market share would likely render them increasingly uneconomical and lead to a death spiral in which private insurance would serve an ever-decreasing share of the market.
Mr. Hoff continues:
It is unclear whether the government plan would be subject to a number of requirements that the private plans would be required to meet. It would appear to give the HHS Secretary and the Health Choices Commissioner the discretion to decide these ambiguities in favor of the government plan and to find that various requirements do not apply to the government plan because of its overriding mission to offer a low-cost plan. However, even without including these potential advantages,the government plan would clearly be free of a number of requirements and expenses that private plans face.
Doesn't it strike you as odd? How can a bureaucratic organization claim to be on an even playing field with other private insurance corporations when it has the power to regulate and define vital concepts that implicate the entire industry? What democrats fail to see is that any game where the players are the referees is doomed to an inevitable fate of corruption.
Is it worth it?
It was thought that The Congressional Budget Office drove a stake in the heart of Obama's plans for health care reform when they announced the trillion dollar price-tag to the legislation earlier in 2009. Recently, Obama has gotten back on his feet and has arrived at a major milestone by getting a version of the legislation to pass the Senate Finance Committee. However, new questions are popping up regarding Obama's signature agenda item - and by no one other than the Congressional Budget Office itself. Apparently, not only would the Senate draft cost near a trillion dollars, but it would still leave a majority of the low-income population without health insurance, according to a recent USA Today article:
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 17 million Americans would remain uninsured under the Senate Finance Committee's 10-year, $829 billion health care bill. Health experts such as Rowland say that number would include families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for insurance.
The expanding budget deficit does not seem to be a major issue for a president so adamantly tied to Keynesian economics. The question Americans should be asking themselves right now is, are 10 out of 27 million Americans who are uninsured worth another trillion dollars worth of treasury bonds?
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 17 million Americans would remain uninsured under the Senate Finance Committee's 10-year, $829 billion health care bill. Health experts such as Rowland say that number would include families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for insurance.
The expanding budget deficit does not seem to be a major issue for a president so adamantly tied to Keynesian economics. The question Americans should be asking themselves right now is, are 10 out of 27 million Americans who are uninsured worth another trillion dollars worth of treasury bonds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
