frankhagan.com

The Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, certainly had its moments. In what appears to be an impromptu statement, Ryan Sorba, head of the Young Americans for Freedom’s California chapter, stood up to condemn CPAC’s invitation to GOProud, a group that supports gay Republicans:

Mr. Sorba was booed by some in the conservative audience. He has a right to his opinion, and certainly to his personal beliefs. Without vilifying Mr. Sorba, I would like to examine why his concerns are misplaced.

Conservatives and libertarians are concerned about the scope and reach of government. The phrase “limited government” is used to convey this thought. But it is a complex subject. Conservatives generally recognize the need for laws governing human actions that harm or endanger others. Social conservatives tend to marry this idea with another: that individual actions can endanger entire communities, cultures and nations. Sometimes, they want to enact laws, or continue supporting standards to protect society. I submit that is not within the purview of a limited government, as only an expansive, intrusive and overbearing government can hope to “preserve” a culture (think: France).

Finding the right balance between maximum freedom, smallest government, and social order is difficult. But if the choice is between limiting the reach of government into our daily lives and limiting access to political activism by gay people, it might be instructive to take this simple three question test:

Choose one answer in each question:
Within the last 500 years, which one of the following groups has wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and executed people in violation of natural law:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

Within the last 500 years, which one of the following has extracted onerous taxes from people, often without giving them the right to be represented:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

Within the last 500 years, which one of the following has restricted various liberties, including property rights, religious liberty and freedom of speech:
A. Governments
B. Gay people

As the audience members at CPAC booed, they reminded me of the decision by Ronald Reagan as he considered a run for the Presidency. He was asked to oppose the 1978 Briggs Initiative, a measure put to the voters that prohibited gay and lesbian teachers, with jail terms specified for encouraging homosexual behavior. It enjoyed about two thirds support prior to Reagan weighing in, as the Log Cabin Republicans note in their history:

Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That’s when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative “is not needed to protect our children – we have the legal protection now.”

Reagan went further, detailing the dangers of passing such a measure. “It has the potential for real mischief,” the former governor explained. “What if an overwrought youngster, disappointed by bad grades, imagined it was the teacher’s fault and struck out by accusing the teacher of advocating homosexuality? Innocent lives could be ruined.”

Reagan’s forceful opposition helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. In November 1978, voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by more than a million votes. Even in conservative Orange County, Briggs’ home base, the initiative lost. Long-time Democratic gay activist David Mixner met with Reagan in 1978 to personally lobby him on the Briggs initiative, recalling, “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being. He turned opinion around and saved that election for us,” Mixner said. “We would have been in deep trouble. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.”

While social conservatives have a home in the greater conservative movement, it would be instructive for them to remember the greatest threat to freedom comes from government. A government expansive enough to limit the freedom of gays is one expansive enough to limit the freedom of conservatives.

Cross posted to Donklephant

Frank Culture, Politics CPAC, gay rights, GOProud, Log Cabin Republicans, Ronald Reagan

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC recently editorialized that the Tea Party movement was devoid of “people of color.” The rallies I have seen on my local news show a good mix of what I think is meant by the term “people of color”, including blacks, hispanics, Pacific islanders and asians. But I do live in the most diverse state in the nation, and it would be hard to find any meeting of “pure white” people in this state.

Nationwide, the Tea Party movement has attracted minorities. And I suspect the percentage of “people of color” in the movement matches the percentage of “people of color” who are libertarians or conservatives in the country. I suspect Keith is informed by his own network’s video feeds, which may not feature anti-big-government minorities because they aren’t newsworthy; it doesn’t feed into the stereotype of white southern racists who want a return to Jim Crow laws. Or perhaps he just isn’t paying attention:

Randy Haddock provides his own carefully edited video response to Olbermann:

Cross posted to Donklephant

Frank Politics Keith Olbermann, People of Color, Randy Haddock, Tea Party

While health care reform remains near the bottom of the list of the public’s concerns, with recent polling averaging at 53% opposed to the Democrat’s plans, policymakers realize the impact of future medical and Medicare costs still matter. They exert direct influence one of the biggest concerns Americans have: the ballooning deficit and burgeoning public debt.

The filibuster proof Democratic caucus failed to secure the left’s preferred vision of health care reform over the course of the last year. Now, President Obama is reaching out to Congressional members, even those on the Republican side of the aisle.

Ditching the straw man argument that the GOP wants to “do nothing”, the President has confirmed that some proposals have merit. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was engaged by the President regarding Ryan’s proposed Roadmap for America’s Future Act for 2010 at the February 1st Republican conference:

President Obama: I think Paul [Ryan], for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I’ve read it. I can tell you what’s in it. And there’s some ideas in there that I would agree with but there’s some ideas we should have a healthy debate about because I don’t agree with them.” The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. That’s going to be what our children have to worry about. Now, Paul’s approach, and I want to be careful not to simplify this, I know you’ve got a lot of detail in your plan, but, if I understand it correctly, would say, we’re going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level – No?

Congressman Ryan: No – we protect the program for Americans 55 and above [those in and near retirement]…

Obama: I understand – there’s a grandfathering in….That’s why I said I wanted to make sure that I’m not being unfair to your proposal. I just want to point out that I’ve read it, and the basic idea would be that, at some point, we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn’t go way out of whack, and I’m sure there some details…

Ryan: We increase the Medicare payments with a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is, because Medicare as you know is a $38 trillion unfunded liability.

Obama: Right.

Ryan: It has to be reformed for younger generations because it won’t exist. It’s going bankrupt. The premise of our idea is look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That’s the kind of reform we’re proposing for Medicare. [applause]

The CBO scored Ryan’s proposal with some favorable findings:

The Roadmap, in the form that CBO analyzed, would result in less federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax revenues than projected under CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario” described in CBO’s June 2009 publication The Long-Term Budget Outlook. Federal spending for Social Security would be slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection period, but the system would become sustainable as revenues increase and traditional benefits decline. The budget deficit would peak at 5 percent of GDP in 2034 and then decline. By 2080, the Roadmap would generate a budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP. Under the Roadmap, the ratio of government debt held by the public to economic output (the ratio of debt to GDP) would be lower than that under the alternative fiscal scenario in every year. In particular, debt is projected to peak at 100 percent of GDP in 2043 and to decline thereafter, reaching zero by 2080. (Debt held by the public was about 53 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2009.) The federal government would accumulate net financial assets equal to 17 percent of GDP by 2083. In contrast, under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt is projected to skyrocket over the next several decades.

The Roadmap accomplishes this by implementing notable reforms to Social Security and Medicare that should find bi-partisan agreement.

The Heritage Foundation analyzed the bill for its impact on non-seniors, and concluded:

The Ryan bill outlines clear, sound principles to reform entitlement spending and health care. The Roadmap’s health care provisions would bend the cost curve in health spending, make insurance more affordable and accessible, and create a consumer-driven, highly-competitive system.

The Roadmap addresses health insurance coverage for non-seniors in three ways. First, changing the tax treatment of health care insurance enables a transition from an employer-based tax exemption to individual tax credits to put the consumer back in the driver’s seat, a key component of reducing health care insurance costs. You pay more attention when you know the cost will impact you and your personal insurance rates (people are often more careful about filing a claim with their auto insurance company than they are with their employer’s health insurance policy).

Secondly, state based exchanges and reforms are encouraged through a Federal-state partnership, allowing our states, the “laboratories of democracy”, to find new and innovative ways to cover the uninsured.

Finally, allowing interstate purchases of insurance allows a wider national pool of consumers to be built by the insurers, lowering costs by spreading risks in an actuarilly sound manner.

Rep. Ryan is a thoughtful, smart guy who moves beyond rigid partisanship to find solutions worthy of consideration. It remains to be seen if the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington DC can accommodate his ideas.

Cross posted to Donklephant

Frank Politics health care reform, Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican health care proposals

Cross-posted to Donklephant

Frank Politics Barack Obama, humor, State of the Union

It’s been a bad week for Democrats. Republican Scott Brown won the special election for the Senate seat formerly held by Sen. Ted Kennedy, leading to predictions that the House and Senate will not be able to cram through their strictly partisan health care reform bill. To add to the nervousness already felt by the Dems, the Supreme Court struck down components of campaign finance reform that favors incumbents and Democrats specifically.

But the GOP shouldn’t sit back and gloat. There is a unique opportunity to actually work with the Democratic leadership and get some things done that remain popular with the American people. And failure to act on them may expose the GOP to the same anti-incumbent mood that swept them from the majority in 2006. USA Today reports:

A 55% majority of Americans say President Obama and congressional Democrats should suspend work on the health care bill that has been on the verge of passage and consider alternatives that would draw more Republican support, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

. . .

An overwhelming 72% of those surveyed Wednesday say Brown’s victory “reflects frustrations shared by many Americans, and the president and members of Congress should pay attention to it.” Just 18% say it “reflects political conditions in Massachusetts and doesn’t have a larger meaning for national politics.”

What kind of reforms should the GOP put forward? There are a number of blocked proposals the Dem leadership should now allow on the floor for debate. From the GOP.gov website:

For more information about some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, please visit the links below:

• Empowering Patients First Act  (Republican Study Committee  Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 30, 2009)
• Improving Health Care for All Americans Act (Shadegg Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 14, 2009)
• Medical Rights & Reform Act   (Kirk-Dent Health Care  Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009)
• Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act   (Gingrey medical liability reform bill, introduced June 6, 2009)  
• Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009   (Johnson small business health plans bill, introduced May 21, 2009)
• Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through  Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act of 2009   (Castle Wellness & Prevention Bill, introduced July 31, 2009)
• Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act of 2009  (Deal auto-enrollment bill, introduced October 15, 2009)
• Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College Students Act of 2009  (Blunt bill to improve health insurance coverage of dependents, introduced October 21, 2009)

The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, explains these bills further, and points to several “guiding principles” that Republicans can support in other proposals:

Tax Equity: Today, if an individual purchases health insurance through their employer, they receive unlimited tax breaks on the value of their insurance. But if you purchase your insurance on your own, you receive no such benefit. This is inequitable and regressive. Ideally, Congress could replace the current tax exclusion with a system of universal tax credits. But at the very least, Congress should provide tax relief for those who purchase coverage on their own, and redirect other health care spending to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance coverage.

State-Based Reform: Every state is different when it comes to health care challenges. Some states face high rates of uninsured citizens while others face spiraling costs. Instead of a federal one-size-fits-all approach, Congress should embrace federal-state partnerships that preserve diversity in the states. The states could devise their own way to achieve reform, like a mechanism for portability (i.e. take your insurance from job to job). Individuals should also have the freedom to purchase insurance from any trusted source and not be restricted by where they live (i.e. buying insurance across state lines).

Entitlement Reform: Not only are Medicare and Medicaid increasingly costly, they’re not delivering value to American taxpayers. If health providers could compete directly for the business of seniors and the poor, the cost-curve would truly be bent and private innovation would flourish. Right now, the tsunami of entitlement spending is on an automatic course for disaster, with locked-in spending, and more to come. Long-term costs of entitlement programs must be built into the annual budget process so Congress can no longer ignore the crisis that is continually pushed off on future generations. Americans can no longer blindly pay into an entitlements system that offers little incentives to providers to offer better value to the consumer and the funding taxpayer.

There is a difference between saying “no” to a bad plan, and just saying “no”. The task for the GOP will be to come up with common sense alternatives that people can support.

Cross posted to Donklephant

Frank Politics GOP health care proposals, health care reform