WASHINGTON – If, as Forrest Gump’s mom was fond of saying, “Stupid is as stupid does,’’ there is a whole lot of people doing stupid in the nation’s capital these days.
It’s gotten to the point where you can’t hardly identify the stupid without a scorecard. Most of the horrors are, of course, emanating from the White House, where President Donald J. Trump often seems out to prove that he’s in over his head, a condition that should surprise absolutely no one.
His budget, as it can only be laughingly called, seeks to cut the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the most successful bureaus within the federal government, by about 30 percent beginning on Nov. 1, slashing key areas like enforcement, the reclamation of festering hazardous waste sites and restoration projects such as the on-going effort to revitalize the Chesapeake Bay.
Then, in order to waste billions of dollars building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, our president wants to cut the budget of several agencies designed to provide the nation with some sort of security – the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the folks who come in when disaster strikes.
If you’re looking for a definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face, there it is.
Then, of course, there are the president’s unsubstantiated claims that his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, tapped his phones at the Trump Tower in New York City, hoping to unearth, well, who knows what. The claim is ridiculous on its face but Trump did manage, at least temporarily, to divert attention away from his rapidly failing administration.
But all of the stupid isn’t emerging from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In their haste to repeal Obamacare, which has helped provide some form of health insurance to more than 20 million individuals enrolled in the program, Congressional Republicans are offering up a decidedly inferior product that, according to almost every available analysis, will reduce the number of individuals obtaining policies, increase premiums and cost more than the current program, thus further contributing to the federal deficit.
The American Medical Association announced its opposition to the bill, known as American Health Care Act, because of the “expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient population.’’
Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that, “Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement.’’ Meaning, of course, the underprivileged will be forced to dig deeper into their pockets to provide health care for themselves and their families.
And it calls a halt to the Medicaid expansion provision in Obamacare by 2020, furthering the misery of those on the lower end of the economic scale.
The entire fiasco raises a question – what benefit do Congressional Republicans hope to derive by foisting a blatantly low grade health care package, one that patently degrades the status quo, on an already disgruntled public?
To House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-WI, and our own, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Louisville, it means they can remain mounted on the horse they rode in on. The GOP has made hay outraging the general public on the mostly-imagined dire effects of Obamacare, vowing to come to the rescue when conditions permitted.
Now, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, put up or shut up time has arrived and they are forced to produce a plan, even a grossly inferior one.
It also provides Republicans with another opportunity to kowtow to the wealthy, something they have done so frequently it’s a wonder how they haven’t thrown out their collective backs. The measure amounts to about a $600 billion tax cut for those making more than $250,000, an assessment that was made to help pay for Obamacare – repealing the 3.8 percent investment income tax alone is expected to amount to $158 billion by 2026.
Quite literally under the GOP plan the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Ain’t we got fun?
Despite all evidence, McConnell insists lawmakers must repeal Obamacare and replace it “with common-sense reforms to preserve access and lower cost,’’ although the GOP measure does neither.
“Paying more for less. That’s Obamacare for you right there,’’ McConnell said. “Look, in so many different ways, we’ve seen the evidence for years now that Obamacare simply isn’t working. This isn’t a law that can be fixed. This isn’t a law that can be saved. It has to be repealed and replaced. We promised the American people we would. We’re keeping our promise.”
The problem, of course, is Republicans promised to replace Obamacare with something better. The evidence, if you will, establishes that the measure he is promoting is decidedly worse. It will cost low-income individuals more to purchase insurance and it will add to the deficit. Now that’s paying more for less.
In attacking Obamacare, more appropriately titled the Affordable Care Act, McConnell is like Grant at Cold Harbor, constantly attacking the rebel lines to no avail, costing the Union thousands in casualties. In this instance, it’s easy to see that McConnell’s unnatural disdain for Obama is so great he’s willing to accept anything to destroy the former president’s landmark accomplishment.
In attacking Obamacare, more appropriately titled the Affordable Care Act, McConnell is like Grant at Cold Harbor, constantly attacking the rebel lines to no avail, costing the Union thousands in casualties. In this instance, it’s easy to see that McConnell’s unnatural disdain for Obama is so great he’s willing to accept anything to destroy the former president’s landmark accomplishment.
Criticize Obamacare if you choose, it has problems that need to be addressed. But pushing it aside for a vastly inferior product and promising, as McConnell has, to take it directly to the Senate floor without hearings or other considerations as soon as it’s passed by the House, is lunacy. So much for the “regular order’’ he is so proud to pat himself on the back about.
Regardless, one might expect Trump to some to the rescue. After all, during his successful campaign and thereafter the president promised “insurance for everybody.’’ He vowed to champion lower deductibles and health care costs for all, improved care and to maintain the Medicaid system. The Republican bill accomplishes none of those goals but it has earned his wholehearted support.
Instead, you guessed it, the president said he is “proud’’ to support the GOP plan.
“I think we’re going to have something that’s much more understood and much more popular than people could even imagine,’’ he said.
Trump said the measure “follows the guidelines I laid out,’’ a claim that is, well, playing with the truth.
How much longer is the American public going to put up with this silliness?
The last line of defense against this outrage may come from libertarian-leaning conservatives, like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Bowling Green, and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-SomewhereorotherLewisCounty. Of course they are opposing the replacement measure for all the wrong reasons – Paul in particular has referred to it as Obamacare-lite.’’
Oh well, any port in a storm.
Washington correspondent Bill Straub served 11 years as the Frankfort Bureau chief for The Kentucky Post. He also is the former White House/political correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service. A member of the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame, he currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, and writes frequently about the federal government and politics. Email him at williamgstraub@gmail.com.
Where does one start? The possibilities are endless but I’ll just address two of the items Bill mentions. The idea of a wall all along the Mexican border is just plain bat**** crazy. I lived in Arizona for thirty-five years and know a little bit about that problem. Walls work in towns and cities to some extent. Often wherever you find a U.S. border town, there will be a Mexican town on the opposite side of the border. Fences and walls tend to siphon legal folks toward the official ports of entry but the illegals use tunnels, of which dozens have been dug. Drugs come across carried by drones or one can just throw them over the wall and catapults have come into fashion lately. There are hundreds of miles of relative uninhabited desert where the cost/benefit of walls would be outrageous. The present system of patrols and electronic surveillance would be more cost effective here. And then there is health care. I don’t see any kind of plan surviving without the individual mandate. There has to be incentives to buy insurance otherwise any kind of plan that government rolls out will fail. Our dynamic libertarian duo of Sen. Paul and Rep. Massie are on the right side of this bill but for all the wrong reasons.
Okay, Marv, so you don’t think securing our borders is a worthwhile goal or, as Blowhard Bill puts it, a waste of money?
The EPA “one of the most successful bureaus”?! Easily one of the most laughable utterances you’ve managed yet! But then, if one considers that ridiculous remark in a truly warped way, I guess one could foolishly believe that if they think bureaucratic overreaching with little to no oversight is a good thing.