At the end of the day, the inability to change or tune a federal program or to create an environment to experiment is exactly why no programs should exist at the federal level. It is not the existence of partisan rancor that causes problems. It's the end result of a program that favors one party (the one in power at the time) and is shoved down the throats of everyone - like it or not.
California has different social perspectives than Utah or Ohio. Vermont people have different priorities than Texans. Why is it that we allow one political group to force its ideals and values on others?
Things were no different 229 years ago when the constitution was being drafted. As simple as southern states being mostly agrarian and northern states emerging into light industry. Back then, what was important to people in cities was not the same as what farmers valued. Even faith was practiced differently in different regions. Our constitution was formed specifically to keep the federal government form encroaching on local beliefs. It was not an accident. Today differences still exist in many regards. While we may often agree that a given problem exists, we often, usually along political lines, disagree on the solution. And assuming the responsibility at the federal level means that most fixes applied will anger about half the people and because of the size and complexity of the bureaucracy at the federal level, the solution will be nearly impossible to adjust if it does not work.
If my neighborhood has an issue that it needs to deal with, like a dog that barks all day. My neighbors can get together to solve the problem with a direct focus on the specific problem and the source of it. We all have a say and can voice opinions and offer solutions. If we can't solve it ourselves, we can ask our town to take up the matter. We can still approach the town council and speak on the problem and offer solutions. If they feel it is a big enough problem, they can pass local ordinances. If the city can't resolve it, we can take it to the county where we can often still have a voice and speak to the county commissioners. Once it gets to the stat level, it is harder, geographically and logistically to have a direct say, but local representatives offer some access.
Yet once an issue gets to the federal level, having a voice is little more than a tick mark for or against on a tally sheet. Having a real voice is difficult at best. Even if you have the ear of your representatives, they are also listening to those with money - lobbyists, big corps and wealthy donors. They are very unlikley to upset any of thos apple carts because a constituent has an issue.
Yesterday, a left-wing extremist took shots at republican congressmen practicing for the baseball game against democrats.
The attack has brought the two political sides together in a in a sort of "Let's all change the tone" moment. That would certainly be welcome, but it won't solve the problem.
The problem is not that Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals disagree. Nor is it the tone of the disagreement that causes issues.
As a conservative, I really don't care how nice my opponents are when they attempt to shove their politics down my throat. As an example, for a fraction of a moment, politically, the left had majorities in the house, senate and presidency. They used that advantage to push a socialist healthcare agenda on all Americans without any voice in the matter for the minority conservatives.
The power that exists in Washington is incredible. It is power that was never supposed to be there and has been added incrementally since the founding of the country. Every little encroachment on "State's Rights" is seen as just a minor extension of a power already approved. Soon, there will be nothing that the federal government can not do and it will use the power to push the agendas of the party in power deeper into the lives of Americans.
Is it so bad? If the ACA bill were not a miserable failure, would it be so bad that everyone have equal healthcare? Of course that is laudable! But you can never end that argument. If you say "yes," universal healthcare should be a right, then what about 3 square meals a day? What about a warm coat and a pair of winter boots? What about a warm (or cool) house? Of what good is a free house if you can't afford electricity or other utilities - need to provide that too?
It is not that society should or should not have the right to make these decisions about public welfare services, it is that once installed at the highest government levels, no one can really change them, fix them or remove them without herculean efforts. Just try to tweak Social Security or Medicare. It can not be done. They refer to it as the third rail of politics. And why should that be? Why can't those programs be regularly reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness and solvency? Why not create alternatives to test to see if they might be better.
The answer is because they are too big and entrenched.
If instead of the ACA, the government said to states, we would like you to create healthcare coverage programs in your state to assure that everyone has equal access to coverage. They could issue guidelines and goals but not directives. Imagine that 50 states create 50 different programs, and after 10 years, 10 or 15 show themselves to be much more efficient and effective. States could much more easily change and adapt and tweak their programs and work on a model of constant improvement. But with the ACA, change is nearly impossible without throwing out the whole thing and recreating it which is what Republicans are trying to do. They may pass something but once again, it will be impossible to fix and will not allow for experimentation or modification for local needs
We have to find a way to neuter Washington's ability to direct our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment