WHAT ROMNEY WANTS TO GET RID OF
Mitt Romney spent some time last night adding to his heartless image. In an interview with a CNN affiliate in St Louis,he said that because of the deficit: “You get rid of Obamacare, but there are others. Planned Parenthood, we’re gonna get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can’t afford to borrow money to pay for these things.”
What is notable about his proclamation is his dismissive tone. You might not like the President’s health plan but it is a good faith attempt to deal with our expensive, inefficient and insufficient health care system. Romney proposes nothing it its place.
Planned Parenthood may provide abortions but its main role is to deliver healthcare to poor women. Ironically, in providing contraception and counselling they may reduce abortions. And as Planned Parenthood is not a government agency Romney cannot ‘get rid’ of it.
Railways spurred America’s geographic and economic expansion. But while China and Europe develop high-tech, high-speed rail service, Romney has no rail rail policy, except get rid of it.
The NEA and NEH are favored Republican whipping boys; getting rid of them is pique, not fiscal VIRTUE. Their combined budget is $300 million, or less than the cost of two F-35C joint strike fighters; better to get rid of the oil and gas subsidies and save $4 billion.
If Romney was truly interested in deficit reduction and not social policy he would talk of Social Security, Medicare/caid and the military. That’s where the money is.
SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK) HAS A GOOD IDEA
Tom Coburn has earned the sobriquet ‘Dr. No’ for his opposition to much of what his colleagues in the Senate propose. He is particularly intransigent with judicial appointments. But he has apparently had a ‘Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus’ moment. He recently proclaimed that “I think the very issue [of judicial selection] is what makes Americans sick of what we’re doing. It’s a tit for tat. We’ve got to get beyond that. The problems are too great for our country. What I do know is that presidents are entitled to their nominees.”
It might be a pipe dream that Presidents will appoint qualified judges without an eye to their politics, but often judges will surprise. Earl Warren had been three time Republican Governor of California before being appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by Republican President Eisenhower, but he became the liberal lion that oversaw the legal recognition of civil rights, including integrated schools, voting rights, Miranda rights, right to representation in criminal trials, the right to privacy and the legal end of segregation.
WILL THE SUPREME COURT CHANGE ITS MIND AGAIN?
The Supreme Court generally gets the best reviews of the three branches of government; especially as it has periodically overturned its worst decisions. Most famous of these being Plessy vs. Ferguson, which established the doctrine of “separate but equal” until “Brown vs. The Board of Education” banned segregation.
Recently the Supreme Court’s reputation has taken a hit over its Citizens United decision, allowing corporations unlimited donations to so called SuperPACs. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll 69% believe that these Super PACS should be illegal. This opinion is held by a majority regardless of party affiliation. The Republican primaries have reinforced the opinion that elections can now be bought as SuperPAC money has flooded the process.
The US Supreme Court now has an opportunity to revisit its reasoning in Citizens United. The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld the ban on corporate money in Montana politics. The corporate interests that sought to overturn the ban are now looking to the US Supreme Court to overrule Montana. But they run a risk. The Justices are supposed to be above politics, but they aren’t immune to the news, including poll results.
HAVE A LITTLE JESUS WITH YOUR OJ.