Reconciliation or Reconciliate?

True or False?
All criminals have a constitutional right to a lawyer? True.
All honest working Americans have a right to a doctor? False.

Incomprehensible statements such as those espoused above have placed health care reform at the very top of President Obama's agenda. Aside from having to combat the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, attempting to repair a fledgling public school system that was only harmed by No Child Left Behind, and reasserting America's soft power by moving the focus off of Iraq and opening diplomatic relations where possible, President Obama, and Congress, have the task of reforming a broken health care system. With the current state of American health care, there are major issues relating to cost, access, and quality. America spends nearly 17% of its GDP on health care, an astronomical number when compared to nations around the world, yet we hardly reap the benefits. 45 million Americans are left uninsured, while those who are insured are faced with ever rising costs and in many cases, below average care. With unemployment on the rise due to the recession, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs, and with it, their health insurance provided through their employers. COBRA, the program for those who are unemployed to retain their health insurance, has enormous premiums that make it all but impossible for Americans to afford it. People are left sitting at the kitchen table at the age of 62, praying that nothing happens to them until they can begin to reap the benefits of Medicare at the age of 65. Millions of Americans are one sickness or one injury away from being bankrupt. To put it in the most simple terms, there is nothing more integral than combatting the issues that are ravaging the American health care system.


With a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, and the so-called "super majority" of 60 Democratic Senators, it may appear as if any health care reform bill would be easy to get through to President Obama's desk. To top it off, the Senate passed a measure known as reconciliation this spring, meaning that when the health care bill does come to the Senate floor, the Republicans cannot filibuster as only a simple majority is needed for passage, rather than the normal 60 votes needed to pass a bill. However, this has caused great debate. While some, such as Majority Leader Reid propose a more partisan approach in order to ensure that what is needed in the bill is there, others, such as Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have attempted to look for a more bipartisan solution to the health care crisis. This of course begs the question, is America better off if the Democrats recognize that they don't need any Republican votes to pass real health care reform and they instead insure a strong bill is passed this year? Is it better for the Democrats to utilize reconciliation, or should they make more of an attempt to reconciliate with Republicans and create more of a working consensus towards the future? These are the questions that will ultimately be answered in the coming days and weeks, as President Obama has urged Congress to have a bill on his desk by the August recess.


In my opinion, for the immediate term and specifically regarding the health care bill, the Democrats need to proceed, even if it means little to no Republican support for the bill. Put simply, the Democrats have a mandate. They won huge victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and Americans have put faith in them to get real change done in Washington. There has been plenty of opportunity for Republicans to be a real part of creating this bill, along with the other major legislation passed thus far in the Obama Administration, yet they continually oppose anything with the names Pelosi, Reid, or Obama on it. America cannot afford to wait any longer. Try telling an uninsured forty year old woman with a medical condition who can't afford health insurance, and even if she could, would probably be left in the dust by private insurance companies who refuse to insure "high-risk" patients that she needs to just wait it out a little longer while we wait for the Republicans to get what they want. How ridiculous is that? The people who need health insurance most can't get it because they're not healthy. If Republicans get their way, there won't be a public option to keep the private insurance companies honest. With the ever-flowing streams of cash coming into the private insurance companies, and practices such as the one described above, it's time for them to either compete or fold. These insurance companies are killing Americans, and it's about time it stops. Senator Reid has stated that it is more important for the integral parts of the bill to be included than to have a few Republican votes while stripping down the bill to something that will not do much to save American lives. I stand with Senator Reid on this, and strongly urge the Democrats to do whatever it takes to pass strong health care legislation that includes a public option to insure Americans. Word has come out in the past couple of days that President Obama and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel are now taking this position as well. On November 4th, 2008, Barack Obama stood at Grant Park and boldy claimed victory, stating that "Change has come to America." Well, it's time for that change. Republicans: get on board, or get out of the way.

Time to Quit? You Betcha!

So let's say for a moment that you are found from the political obscurity of Alaska, Russia's neighbor, and are suddenly placed on a national ticket to become the Vice President of the United States. Throughout the next three months, you are largely shielded by a campaign while clearly asserting your future national ambitions. After some slip ups and winks, your ticket is crushed on election day. But your national ambitions are not over. You now have four years to prove that your inexperience and lack of knowledge of the issues are not truly reflective of you while deciding on a run at the top of the Republican national ticket. So what is the best way to go about proving yourself to the American public? To a country that is known for standing up when times get tough, for rising to every occasion, for asserting its ultimate strength even in its times of incomprehensible tragedy and weakness?  Well if your name is Sarah Palin, then apparently the way to prove yourself is to quit. 

What Sarah Palin did is incredibly difficult to analyze. On July 3rd, the eve of America's national independence, Palin apparently decided the time was right to step down as Governor of Alaska. Why? Well, she didn't give many reasons, other than to say that she didn't want to be a lame duck governor and she wasn't going to run for re-election. Without mincing my words, what an absolutely pathetic example to set for future politicians. So is her argument that any lame duck politician should simply resign and forgo the rest of their term? She was elected to a four-year term, and how can she expect the voters to entrust her with the responsibilities of running a state when she is always looking for the next best thing. Should President Bush have resigned on November 5th, 2008, since he had become a lame duck President? Or should he simply have resigned on January 21st, 2005 since he couldn't run for another term. According to Palin's logic, a politician should only stay in office for as long as they are looking towards another election. How about spending the next 18 months doing the people's business that you were elected to do? The work that you did so well while you were off campaigning in every state but Alaska from August 29th until Election Day last year. 

So what were your real motives, Sarah Palin? Do you think the best way to vault yourself to the Presidency is to prove yourself a quitter? When John McCain, an honorable man, suspended his campaign last fall to focus solely on the economic crisis, now-President Barack Obama chided McCain for being unable to focus on more than one issue, something which any president must undoubtedly face on a daily basis. McCain's loss on Election Day may not have been a direct reflection of his decision to suspend his campaign, but it certainly didn't help him. So what Sarah Palin has done is taken McCain's prerogative to a whole new level, assuming that her true ambitions are to run for the presidency in 2012. Americans do not quit, and Americans do not elect quitters to become the leader of the free world. There are other possibilities as well. Was Palin facing more federal charges and felt it was wiser to resign and avoid the public eye rather than having to continually face these charges? The FBI has confirmed that they were not currently investigating Palin, and so this reasoning seems implausible. Rather, I believe that Palin truly is looking for something to vault her into the public eye, to attempt a Richard Nixon, as he lost the California Governorship and then went into helping Republican candidates get elected and ultimately running for, and winning, the presidency in 1968. However, even in Nixon's case, he didn't quit, he lost an election. Sarah Palin, you quit. Your intelligence, your knowledge of the issues, and your grasp of American ideals were questionable to begin with. As a quitter, you have simply confirmed that you do not reflect the ideals of America. All you have done is abandon the only people who have ever elected you to public office, the Alaskans. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or in Sarah Palin's case, when the going gets tough, then it's time to quit. Right. Good luck with that presidential campaign. I wouldn't quite start painting the Sarah Palin presidential portrait quite yet. President Barack Obama, President George W. Bush, and the 42 men who have held the ultimate office in America before them have not been quitters. Sarah Palin isn't about to be the first. 

The debate over Guantanamo

One of President Obama's first moves upon assuming his role as the 44th President of these United States of America was signing an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the beginning of February 2010. However, since then, there has been a great deal of debate about what to do with the approximately 245 detainees being held in Guantanamo. Governors have constantly coming out basically saying, "Not in my state," when posed with the question of whether or not they would be willing to take the suspected terrorists from Guantanamo into prisons in their state. This week, the Senate voted to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for the foreseeable future. But this begs the question: For a country that has a higher prison rate than any other nation on the planet, do we truly have this little faith in our prisons and justice system?

As of the beginning of 2008, there were 2.31 million people in prisons throughout the United States. That is 1 out of every 99.1 adults in this country. Many of these people are in prison for extremely heinous murders, or, as may be more prevalent to this debate, for terrorist activities. What this country also has is something known as supermax prisons. These are prisons with extremely tight restrictions, and NOBODY has ever successfully broken out of a supermax prison in the United States. Timothy McVeigh was housed in an American prison before his execution. He was a convicted terrorist. The detainees in Guantanamo are suspected terrorists. I, along with the Obama Administration, do not propose giving the terrorists a thousand dollars and allowing them to run free through America. What I do propose, however, is moving them to the toughest supermax facilities in America, where they are likely to be more secure than they even currently are in Guantanamo Bay. This country has held countless terrorists and mass murderers in its prisons. If we cannot trust our prisons to hold suspected terrorists, then what is the true value of our prisons? If we cannot hold the suspected worst of the worst, who can? Put simply, Guantanamo Bay has become a symbol of American injustices that took place over the past 8 years, and in reaffirming American soft power to truly regain our ultimate respect around the world, Guantanamo needs to be closed.

Newt was on campus

Newt Gingrich was on campus this past week, but did anyone notice?

It's really unfortunate that the University doesn't inform the political community here at UD that a prominent speaker is coming to campus. They only rely on their internal media relations folks to get out the word, and even then they don't care to inform the students who may be interested - only the alumni and parents who supposedly form the backbone of the University's growing concern for 'prestige.'

Perhaps they were afraid that if they involved political organizations on campus they'd risk protests. Indeed, the Dems would have been upset that Gingrich was coming- however given that they were discussing bipartisan solutions to health care with Democratic Governor Jack Markell, we could let the archetect of the Republican 'Revolution' slide a little.

Still... discouraging for a University on a 'path to prominence.'

BREAKING: YouDee is a College Democrat

Potentially incriminating Election Night photos have revealed that University of Delaware mascot YouDee is in fact, a Democrat. No official comment from the bird him/herself.

The College Democrats have publicly welcomed YouDee's endorsement.

I regret my vote for Blagojevich

Governor Blagojevich needs to step down; he needs to resign.

In 2006 I was a first-time voter. It was the Illinois Democratic Primary and my choices for governor were incumbent Democrat Rod Blagojevich versus ill-funded Chicago alderman Edwin Eisendrath. At the time, Blagojevich was mired in a corruption investigation that plagued his campaign and administration. Primary challenger Eisendrath campaigned on the message of ending the politics as usual in Springfield and encouraged Illinois Democrats to cast an informed vote. Eisendrath was destroyed; the Chicago Democratic Machine was uncomfertable with the idea of defeating an incumbant Democrat mid-stream. Though insightfully I voted for Eisendrath- against my Democratic governor.

My second vote in the General Election haunts me today. I had just arrived at the University of Delaware the fall of my freshmen year and requested to vote absentee. As I stared at my ballot the choices included Blagojevich (D), Baar-Topinka (R) and Whitney (Green). Silently, like many Illinoisans, I held my nose and voted for Blago believing that he had to be better than the Republican State Treasurer Baar-Topinka. I just couldn't wrap my mind around voting for a Republican coming out of the George Ryan Administration and I believed that the Green Party candidate didn't have a shot. I wasn't about to throw away my first General election Gubernatorial vote.

I would later find out that Whitney of the Green Party received 10% of the vote, and as much as Illinois is a liberal Midwestern state I'm absolutely certain that the majority of Whitney supporters were disaffected Democrats who just couldn't justify voting for Blago.

In hindsight... I wish I had voted Green; I wish I had voted against Blago and I wish I had voted against 'pay to play' politics. But I didn't.

Delaware, I admire your state's politics. I admire the genuine people here and the desire for honest and ethical government.

What Illinois needs is someone trustworthy and new-a change agent- to step up and shake things up in Springfield. Remember, it is Illinois that has produced this nation's best leaders (Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Adlai Stevenson and Barack Obama among others) and evidently it is also home to some of our worst. Two corrupt governors in secession- one no better than the rest- of both parties. Disgusting.

It's time for change in Springfield.