04 21 2015
  7:42 am  
40 Years of Service

Last week the President held a health summit with the congressional Republican and Democratic leaders. The result was what we all expected: nothing.
Now the nation is waiting for President Barack Obama to announce this week what he will do next on the health care issue – will he keep trying to talk Republicans into coming to some agreement with the Democrats, or will he maneuver a straight-ahead majority vote using the 'reconciliation' strategy and just get it over with?
Reconciliation, often used by former President George Bush, allows the senate to pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes rather than requiring the usual super majority of 60. Bush used this parliamentary maneuver in 2001 to pass tax breaks for the wealthy.
It worked for Bush – why shouldn't it work for Obama?
Since Obama has tried to go along to get along, he has fumbled away the health care reform strategies that might have served the majority of people in this country most effectively. The very least he can do is light a fire under the reform bill now on the table and stop worrying about what the sore losers will say about it afterward.
He may regret it now, but Obama made big campaign promises about health care reform during his run for president. If he uses the reconciliation strategy to push through the legislation he might not be re-elected – but at least he would be making some kind of name for himself as accomplishing something important for the American people. To fail would be a disaster to his presidency and the nation.
Last week John McCain said to Obama, "Both of us during the campaign promised change in Washington." President Obama responded, "We are not campaigning anymore … the election is over." You said it, Mr. President. So what are you waiting for?
Former-President Bush never wasted time wondering what the Democrats thought or wanted, and like it or not, he got things done.
However Obama has the opposite problem: Right now there is no way the situation could possibly be worse. Health care costs are rising for small businesses, many Americans can't afford the higher premiums and are losing their homes to medical-related debt – tens of millions can't get medical help at all.
The recent Supreme Court decision to remove limits on corporate spending on campaigns promises to throw gasoline on this fire. These big corporations now can spend any amount of money to defeat any candidate.
So Mr. President, leave your legacy. We urge you to push through health care using the 51 votes.

What do you think?
Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals



About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast
The Skanner Photo Archives