1) POLITICS: An intriguing (if more than a bit wishful) article speculating on favorite Mormon homeboy Mitt Romney’s uncanny fitness to oversee the implementation of President Obama’s new health care reform laws — you know, if he ever realized that he’s not all that talented at playing a politician. That being said, Romney would be uniquely qualified to oversee “Obamacare,” seeing as he passed a nearly identical law in Massachussetts during his time as governor. (Gasp!) An interesting thought to say the least. (Newsweek)

2) POLITICS: Chalk up another one for favorite Mormon homeboy #2 Glenn Beck and his merry band of loons. Just take a listen to this gem. It would be a great SNL parody if the guy wasn’t absolutely dead serious. (Think Progress)

3) TV: Tina Fey’s impression of Tracy Morgan is pretty much hilarious. “You look like you should be married to one of the San Diego Padres!” (YouTube)

4) TV: This is always a good question to ask oneself, especially if you have any interest whatsoever in that national singing competition on Fox that everyone seems to watch. (NY Mag)

5) MUSIC: As all good humans should know, Brooklyn bar-band extraordinaires The Hold Steady have a new album coming out on May 4th. The group’s fifth studio effort, entitled Heaven Is Whenever, will be their first since 2004′s Almost Killed Me not to feature (now former) keyboardist Franz Nicolay. Frontman Craig Finn has been quoted as saying the new record is more introspective and “less anthemic” as a result — but you would never know it from the album’s first single, “Hurricane J.” Go ahead and sing along. You know you want to. (Pitchfork)

The primary reason for the fury is that many Democrats feel betrayed by Matheson, arguing that he ignores his base and votes like a Republican on many key issues. Most recently, he voted no on President Obama’s monumental health care reform bill. It was a close vote and represented, for many, a core principle the Democratic Party has been working to accomplish for decades. Needless to say, it was a controversial vote being that the bill passed by a slim margin of 219 to 212.

During the 2008 election campaign, Democrats repeatedly accused Republican nominee John McCain of being just like George W. Bush. There were bumper stickers reading “McCain: Bush’s Third Term.” What was their reasoning for this? “McCain voted with bush 95% of the time.” So yes, McCain sided with Bush and the Republicans the vast majority of the time.

Some Democrats now accuse Matheson of voting just like a Republican as well, but that might not necessarily be true. According to The Washington Post, Matheson has voted with the current Democrat-controlled Congress 92.1 percent of the time. Does that mean McCain is not really that conservative and that he wasn’t a Bush “Yes Man?” Or does it mean that Matheson really does have Democratic principles?

Matheson has had another conspiratorial controversy surrounding him lately, this one coming from the conservative side of the aisle. The rumor — which was started by The Weekly Standard, a conservative rally cry magazine — alleged that President Obama nominated Rep. Matheson’s brother, Scott, to a federal circuit court judgeship in order to persuade the congressman to vote yes on the health care bill the second time around. Of course, the rumor made its way through the ranks — all the conspiracy-savvy conservatives (including the Republican National Committee) were making sure their base knew what was going on here. Tea baggers loved it. It fed right into their theory that the Obama White House is forcing tyranny on the American people.

More level-headed conservatives understood that was not the case. Both Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz praised the nomination, saying they knew Jim’s brother would fill the vacancy on the court well beforehand. Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and colleague of Scott Matheson, was familiar with the nomination process and was quick to put an end to the theory, explaining the nominating process includes a few months of background inspection. The nomination would have been in the works well before the impassioned health care vote.

Even after all this, the Deseret News reported that Rep. Matheson’s approval rating is currently higher than ever at 64 percent, even higher than that of Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, Bob Bennett, and Utah’s wonder boy Jason Chaffetz (all Republicans).

Admittedly, I am not happy with some of Matheson’s votes, specifically his “No” vote on the health care bill. But what are the alternatives? Matheson’s winning percentage has consistently gone up nearly every time he has run for Congress. If Democrats really want Matheson out and another, more liberal Democrat in, the better option would be to wait until 2012 when Utah is expected to gain another House seat due to population increase.

This could very well result in a more liberal-leaning district than the one Matheson currently represents, since much of Utah’s population growth is based in Salt Lake County and gerrymandering will be severely limited since there is an independent commission in charge of the redistricting project. Maybe Utah could even end up with two Democrats in Washington depending on how the districts are drawn.

In the end, whether you support Matheson or not, we should take a step back from emotion-driven politics and at least get the record straight on the congressman. He deserves that much.

The health care bill does, in fact, account for a large portion of the economy and would have a significant impact on the budget. Republicans actually back me up on this. By the Republicans persistent efforts, they have declared over and over again that health care accounts for a large part of the economy. At the health care summit last week, Lamar Alexander defiantly said that health care makes up roughly 17 percent of the economy and that we should not change it all at once. With that line of thought, reconciliation actually should be used in this case, right?

Republicans are very familiar with reconciliation. Of the 21 times reconciliation has been used, 15 of those were for legislation that Republicans favored. During the George W. Bush administration’s time in office, reconciliation was used three times for tax cuts — even when the Congressional Budget Office was clear about what the devastating effects would be. In 2001, the tax cuts were predicted to reduce surpluses by $1.35 billion over the following 10 years. The famous 2003 “Bush tax cuts” for the rich were projected to increase the national deficit by nearly $340 billion over the 10 subsequent years. The 2006 tax cuts were predicted to increase the deficit by only $70 billion in just a few years.

The last cut and its effects have come and gone already, so you can forget about that one. Where were fiscal conservatives on those, by the way? You know, those same conservatives that argue the health care bill will turn America into a Third World country.

But Republicans constantly want everybody to know just how big of an impact this “government takeover” of health care is going to have on the economy. And that’s true — partially. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the proposed Senate bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the first ten years. And that’s not all — over the second 10 years, the proposed reform is projected to reduce the deficit by an additional $650 billion. For obvious reasons, fiscal conservatives are against the bill.

Republicans continue to insist that we should take it slow on health care reform or, even better, scrap the whole thing entirely. I say use the democratic tool of reconciliation, get a simple majority vote, and pass health care reform already. It’s far overdue.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

There have been plenty of complaints about the health care debate not being transparent enough, and that President Obama and the Democrats have not included the Republicans enough in piecing together legislation for a health care bill.

There have been accusations that the president has not kept his word. For example, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz tried calling the president out in a question at the Republican retreat a couple weeks ago.

“When you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t,” Chaffetz said. “And I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.”

Fair enough. Although the majority of the congressional hearings and committee meetings dealing with health care were, in fact, televised on C-SPAN. I guess the question for critics of this sort is how do you logistically make sure that every meeting is televised? Should every single hearing be televised? What about unofficial talks before actual meetings? Conversations? Opinions? I am as big a supporter of transparency as anyone, but it undeniably gets a little messy.

But now, perhaps in response to the criticism, the White House has invited congressional leaders of both parties to a summit to discuss health care with the hope of moving forward and making health care reform a reality. And yes, it will be televised in its entirety.

Unbelievably, almost immediately Republicans criticized the gesture. The talking points were heard far and wide, migrating from Fox News and the EIB Network directly into Republican leaders’ mouths. “It’s a trap,” they said, typically followed by “I don’ t know what to expect.” There are also fears the president is trying to “intimidate” the Republicans and Americans into a “government takeover of health care.”

From what we know about the debate, it is hardly a trap. By the time it takes place, Republicans will have had nearly three weeks to prepare. The Democrats’ updated bill will be posted online before the gathering, challenging the Republicans to put forward legislation of their own. Both parties were allowed to choose additional participants and staff members specializing in health care policy. In other words, if Republicans are caught by surprise or feel trapped, it will be their own fault.

Republicans are acting like they’re new to debate — or politics, for that matter. A televised debate with more than enough time for preparation is not a trap. Republicans complain about the health care process going too fast, but cannot get enough time to prepare for a debate on a policy we have steadily been talking about for over a year now? Isn’t that the point of debate, to present your proposals and see who has better ideas? Doing an interview with Stephen Colbert is more of a trap than the White House summit will be. (Chaffetz has done an interview with Colbert, by the way.)

Having a couple weeks to get ready for a televised, transparent debate on the people’s health care policy is not a trap. Public policy debate is not a trap. It’s part of open democracy.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

Randal Serr

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic Party, has bluntly stated that no health care bill is better than the health care bill proposed by the Senate. His reasoning is that the Senate bill is complicated, therefore, making it a target for Republicans.

Dean’s opinion is that the House and Senate should scrap the bill and start over so that they can simplify the bill and get the reform they set out to achieve in the first place, specifically either a public option or expanding Medicare. While I absolutely agree with Dean that the bill needs a public option or something similar to it to put the insurance industry in serious check, I disagree with him that we should just kill the bill and start over. I disagree for a few reasons.

Democrats are not going to have such a large majority forever. The 2010 elections are coming sooner than we think and Democrats are bound to lose at least a few seats. It has taken them nearly a year to get this far and trying it all over again would put any form of health care reform at risk. The public is getting more anxious all the time and the more the debate goes on, the more the public gets tired of it. According to Gallup polls, support is slumping for health care reform the longer it goes on. Support was above 50% in September and it has now waned to the high 40’s. The lag in support could be due to the tiring debate or lack of a public option, but either way the overall support has dropped.

While the health care bill lacks what I and many others would prefer, a public option, it still has plenty to offer. No more getting denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. That change is long overdue, especially because some insurance companies have listed things like domestic violence as an uninsurable pre-existing condition. Patients will also be protected from being dropped by insurance companies. People with incomes of up to 400 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for subsidies to help them buy insurance, while families with an income of less than 133 percent of the poverty level would be covered under Medicaid (insuring an additional 14 million people). Small businesses will receive tax breaks to help them ensure their employees. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects about $1 trillion in savings over 20 years if the bill passes. Any of these measures by themselves are worthy of passage, just as was expanding health care for children through SCHIP earlier this year. In sum, they form a very strong bill.

It is important to remember that there is still a lot up in the air about what the final bill will look like. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) have been very vocal about continuing to fight for more competition, specifically the public option. Conyers said the following:

“My message to the these Senators is this: Just as it took compromise to pass your bill last night, so now will it require additional compromise to successfully reconcile your legislation with the House.”

Fiengold added:

“I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision [the public option] is included.”

However, Feingold also said that if the public option does not make it into the final bill, it still offers “meaningful reform.” There are plenty of legislators that are sure to do all they can to get some form of a public option in the final bill. Yet, even if a government-run option does not come out of the bill, it is still a great step forward — with room for even more progress in the future. As Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said, “It’s something we can build on. Social Security passage was [originally] just widows and orphans.” What happened with the expansion of Social Security could very well happen with health care in the future.

There are still questions about how the House and Senate bills will merge, but even if the public option does not make the final bill, it is still a great bill. Supporters of health care reform, especially Democrats, should not let one missing provision overshadow how much this bill will accomplish and the doors it will open for people.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus. He is currently pursuing a graduate degree in public policy at the University of Utah.

Obama's domestic agenda is more about common sense than Fox News would have you believe.

It seems fitting last year’s monumental presidential election gave way to such monumentally heated debates regarding the direction of our country. No president has inherited an economy in such disarray since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 and, while President Barack Obama won the election solidly, supposedly with a mandate for change from the American people, he now faces a partisan wall of substantial force keeping him from making good on the promises that got him to the White House. Washington has begun to increasingly resemble not so much government of the people, by the people, for the people as it does government of the monied interest groups, by the monied interest groups, and for the monied interest groups.

Meanwhile, the fledgling Republicans, being about as cooperative as a child forced to eat their vegetables, found new life as they opportunistically began the cries of “socialist,” “communist,” “terrorist,” “school child indoctrinator,” “foreign-born fraud,” etc. After all, this is politics. But what many conservatives (and especially the loud ones) fail to understand is that much of what the Obama administration seeks to do isn’t exactly radical. In fact, their agenda often follows proven historical patterns. Consider the top three domestic economic issues currently on the table:

Health care reform. As Republicans decry the administration’s attempts to reform our nation’s health insurance market, it is helpful to know this is a top policy priority for good reason. America’s health care system (which was created unintentionally as firms tried to sidestep wage restrictions in the 1930s) is unsustainable in every sense of the word. It consumes almost 20 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, with monthly premiums growing five times faster than wages.

Think of it on a micro scale – a husband and father who goes completely bankrupt paying for his chemotherapy treatments (even though he has insurance!) probably doesn’t have spare cash lying around to invest in the economy. Make no mistake: Without serious reform, health care is the next bubble to burst. Trying to fix the economy without handling health care is the definition of futility in action.

Unemployment. Yikes, yikes, and yikes. Unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent. This is beyond bad for the economy, leaving the output gap (how much the country should be producing versus how much it is actually producing) wider and wider by the month. And with the recent crisis finally stabilizing, the last thing businesses want to do is roll the dice by hiring more employees, which isn’t helping matters. A fresh injection of cash into the economy might be just the thing to help push them over the edge and create some new jobs.

Before you start gasping that more stimulus would ruin the country and increase debt, take a minute to think back to the Great Depression. Government fiscal policy did much to mitigate the effects of that crisis to some degree, but it wasn’t until America entered World War II that things turned around for good. Essentially, financing the war became an enormous government expenditure – or a colossal stimulus package. How big? Well, during the war the United States’ debt-to-GDP ratio reached a staggering 100 percent (right now it’s about sixty percent), and to my knowledge we were able to eventually balance the budget without any bouts of hyperinflation. So, when placed in that historical context, conservatives who argue that “the war got us out of the depression, not the government” might unwittingly be arguing for a second round of stimulus.

Financial Reform. After reckless speculating ruined America in the 1930s, the government regulated Wall Street to prevent future crises. Fifty years later, it became en vogue to deregulate the financial sector, and such policies continued through George W. Bush’s presidency. This was such a bad idea. Once the leash was off Wall Street, the reckless (and arguably immoral) behavior took over, leading to bubbles bursting all over the place, and culminating with the real estate bubble vaporizing the housing market and landing us where we are now.

Despite the current crisis before our eyes, conservatives continue to scream about the need for the government to keep their hands off Wall Street. Don’t believe that hype – the Obama administration’s quest to regulate big banks is not a step into socialism so much as it is a return to the way things were pre-1980. Ronald Reagan’s ideology that government is pure evil has had such marvelous staying power that we often forget the way things were before he took office. In the case of Wall Street, the trade off is clear: If we don’t want the government stilting up banks with bailout money, then we can’t let them get so large that their failure causes mass economic chaos reminiscent of the Great Depression – which is where we would have been without the Bush bailout and the Obama stimulus.

Despite these arguments, my guess is the name-calling and labeling will continue as Republicans seek to gain back the ground they lost in 2006 and 2008. However, evidence suggests the current administration is working to make sure there’s one label they can’t be identified with, the worst political and economic label imaginable – “the next Herbert Hoover,” the poster boy for foolishly waiting to see if the markets correct themselves. No matter what Fox News tells you, this isn’t about creeping socialism or some radical agenda; It’s about common sense.

Daniel Anderson is Rhombus’ resident armchair economist. He is not a radical socialist.

The "public option" of breakfast cereals.

The Great Health Care Debate has produced enough bantering material over the last few months that it seems pretty trite to write yet another piece on the subject. As health care reform rounds more corners in Congress, though, here is yet another opinion on the matter, specifically the hope that somehow, some way, the public option doesn’t get passed over in the discussion.

It seems as though, in both houses of Congress, leaders of health care reform talks are making the public option a top priority. Rhombus columnist Randal Serr recently wrote a piece about Arizona’s functional public insurance plan that stood, in my mind, as a fascinating precedent for this particular component of reform. Earlier this summer, as health care reform began to get serious attention (attention which, by the way, escalated into a literal blogosphere nightmare riddled with outrageous propaganda), I also wrote a column suggesting a public option might provide the functionality needed to save a severely dysfunctional and unsustainable health care market.

There are two general criticisms of the public option. The first is cost. Recent scores by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, however, have put the cost of the most expensive version of the public option in the neighborhood of $871 billion. Or in other words, close to the same amount as the Senate Finance Bill, which included no public option.  This $871 billion proposal is also well below the $900 billion price line set by President Obama in September. Not bad, I would say.

The other (and more legitimate) skepticism of a public option is the belief that the government could run everybody else in the insurance industry out of business by collecting tax revenues, which would allow them to keep their premiums below industry standard. What I’d like to suggest, though, is that facet of the public option is far from the destruction of privatized insurance — and may actually end up being great news for the rest of us. (You know, unless you’re the CEO of CIGNA or Blue Cross and Blue Shield).

While some may scream about the public option representing the government sneaking in through the back door of socialized medicine, it may seem surprising to realize that we actually have some evidence right before our eyes that a public option would not, in fact, lead to the destruction of the private health insurance market. That evidence, my friends, is Malt-O-Meal cereals. Seriously.

The two industries have more in common than you may realize. Consider the fact that, in both cases, the public option and off-brand cereals share some sort of competitive advantage that allows them to charge a lower price than their competitors. Government health care can collect tax revenues to cover cost, while generic cereals pay almost nothing in advertising. They don’t have to — Lucky, Cap’n Crunch and Toucan Sam do all the heavy lifting for them. Then when people saunter down the cereal aisle looking for a magically delicious bowl of Lucky Charms, they see a dog food-sized bag of the comparable Marshmallow Mateys for a fraction of the price. What would you choose? What do you choose? Me too.

But here’s the big secret: Despite this supposed undercut of the market, Post, Kellogg’s and General Mills are still in business. How do we explain this? Well, however we do, we can (with confidence) use the same logic and apply it to the health care industry, since now we see a public option working in Arizona as our functional example.

Essentially, this new competition of off-brand cereals results in three types of purchasing decisions with three distinct types of buyers:

• First, those people that buy the generic stuff because it is all they can afford. My wife and I, impoverished newlyweds that we are, fall into this category.
• Second, those who prefer the taste difference in the name-brand cereals and can afford to buy them, so they do (or maybe they feel buying Frosted Mini-Spooners as opposed to Frosted Mini-Wheats is below someone of their societal position — either way).
• And third, people that could afford to buy name-brand cereals, but are more than satisfied with the generic copy, because they see it as practical to save money for a comparable product, and choose to do so.

What are the results in the cereal industry? The name-brands are forced to lower prices. They can’t quite ever get prices as low as the bagged stuff since they have a different cost structure, but they have to at least stay in the ballpark. Again, this is good for the consumers of name-brands, because they’re now available at a cheaper price. Are profits as large as they were before? Of course not — but in every economic transaction there are winners and losers. If you’re an executive at General Mills, you hate competition from Malt-O-Meal. If you’re one of the hundreds of millions that aren’t said executive (and assuming you eat breakfast cereal), you love Malt-O-Meal.

And this is the fundamental basis of the public option idea. Some will use it for health insurance, because it’s all they can afford. Others will instead be able to pay for the best medical treatment money can buy, and they will. And still others will find the public option’s health coverage perfectly adequate and opt for it, even if they might be able to afford better. Profits will go down and the health industry and pharmaceuticals will lose since they’ll have to lower prices to stay in the ballpark, but millions of Americans would win. As in Arizona, this would prove not to be the demise of insurance companies — they still exist in the state, even after 25 years of a competition from a public option.  Rather, it would become a benefit for citizens looking for solutions to the current, untenable system of privatized health care.

Daniel Anderson is Rhombus’ resident armchair economist. He needs to write more columns comparing public policies to breakfast foods.

Randal Serr

Critics of health care reform, specifically of the public option, often point fingers at “socialized” countries and complain that they don’t want the government running their lives, both of which are logically unsound. Besides the fact that these “socialized” countries have better health care results for less money, opponents of real reform still refuse to accept that a public option is a viable solution. We have heard a lot about how we don’t want to be Canada, but we have failed to look at a public option in the United States that has been successful for decades. It’s not the universal plan initiated in liberal Massachusetts either. It is a public option plan in the conservative state of Arizona.

In 1985, the Arizona State Legislature created what is called the Healthcare Group of Arizona. It is a state-sponsored program that provides guaranteed health care to uninsured businesses (with at least 2 employees), meaning that no one can be turned down for health care based on any medical condition. Differing from other private health care plans, the Healthcare Group reports to the Arizona Legislature. The small businesses can either pay the premiums or offer the plan directly to their employees. It offers various benefit plan options to fit many needs, lifestyles and income. And yes, it covers dental and vision benefits. One of the plans offered even provides the benefit of a cafeteria service.

In short, it’s a great health care option. When the public option started in Arizona there were about 10,000 people enrolled in the plan. Total enrollment as of 2007 was over 45,000 due to word of mouth from satisfied users. The plan has reduced the number of uninsured persons in the state, since small businesses and their employees are often the most likely to lack insurance. The group’s market-based approach has prompted other private insurers to be more innovative and price-competitive as well as seen with price reductions. In other words, it “keeps them honest.”

This is not to say the plan doesn’t have its challenges. Shortly after the plan was passed by Arizona Legislators, premiums had to be raised because funding for the program was running short. There is also risk because the Healthcare Group has to meet goals of enrollment growth in order to keep price stability. Nevertheless, the group’s premiums are now less than half those of private insurers. Based on Arizona’s success story, logic would follow that a public option at the federal level is not doomed to failure and increasing debt.

It appears as though the Arizona plan is successful and that — as in the past — if a federal plan presents challenges, the necessary adjustments will be made by legislators. President Obama has repeated over and over that the public option will pay for itself in about a decade. With legislative changes, the Arizona public option has become self-sustaining without subsidies from the government and their budget is now operating in the black. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

Jess Jones

In a fit of stupidity, I landed myself in the emergency room. It wasn’t how I expected to spend my Tuesday evening, but I guess that’s what I get for longboarding after dark down a gritty canyon trail. I sat in the Provo ER giving my personal information, waiting to be treated for my war wounds, counting the number of people that were going to say, “I told you so.” Needless to say, I was embarrassed. I was a statistic.

I guess the good Lord intends to teach us in diverse ways, but it was wonderful to sit and contemplate the hilarity of the situation. I learned humility at the hands of gravity and an unforgiving asphalt facial. I gained an new found appreciation for the blessing of 24-hour medical facilities. I also mused about the political implications of the whole ordeal. Perhaps it wasn’t the best time to think about politics, but I couldn’t help but think of all the woefully uninsured neighbors of mine that had probably visited that same institution. So what if I didn’t have insurance? Luckily I was covered enough to only have to make a co-payment.

My roommate who witnessed my swan dive into the bike trail mentioned that he was glad I bit the dust instead of him. (I don’t blame him.) I remembered he wasn’t insured. So what would I have done if I were in his position? I lay there as they cleaned my scrapes and cuts, thinking of myself storming into the ER bloodied and battered with a printed copy of the Hippocratic oath and demanding that I be attended to regardless, as if I were starring in a whiter version of John Q. I’d like to think that there are special privileges (such as musing) that are granted to trauma victims such as myself.

I sat there while the doctor stitched up my lacerated cranium and decided to quiz him about the whole health care issue. The moment I mention the name “Obama,” I could feel him stick the needle a bit harder into my numbed skull. He expressed his nervousness for not only the public plan but the uncontrolled tort laws that were allowing prosecuting attorneys to suck physicians dry in malpractice lawsuits. This obviously explained why he sent me to and from the X-ray room to examine every aching part of my body. Due to the presence of a cute X-ray technician that was assisting me, I didn’t mind too much; but think for a moment how much we could save by helping protect the doctors just a bit more from the ambulance-chasing thugs that prey on the medical world.

I don’t know whether it was the blow to my skull or just the intoxicating aroma of sanitizer in the ER, but i felt a little giddy to think that I was amidst the medical community that is in such a frenzy over the pending health care reforms. I can’t offer any definitive opinion concerning the issue, but some definite changes need to happen.

Despite my best efforts to remove myself from the gene pool, I’m still here thanks to the capable hands of the over-qualified and under-appreciated doctors in the Provo Health Center.  It’s always interesting to be placed in a new pair of shoes and experience the actual process of receiving medical attention. Needless to say, I witnessed the need to help as many people as possible receive medical attention. Perhaps I don’t feel the federal government should dictate the program nor should they just force employers to foot the bill, but obviously there is something that needs to be done. Until then, hopefully the majority of the American people will either stow their long boards till this bill passes or we all pray for softer asphalt.

Jess Jones is a conservative political columnist for Rhombus. His face hurts.

Randal Serr

You might have heard about the possibility of health care reform coming this year. It has been mentioned a couple times in the news. When the health care debate does come up, there is a lot of exaggeration, hyperbole and facts being thrown around in all sorts of ways to back up individuals’ respective opinions.

My favorite part of the debate is that everybody has a story about somebody’s friend that they vaguely know of that has completely made their minds up about what kind of health care reform, or lack thereof, needs to take place. Most of that has been talked about enough already though. What I do not think has been sufficiently discussed is the hypocrisy of the health care debate.

More than a handful of conservatives have complained that the possibility of using reconciliation to pass health care reform would be “an abuse of the process,” as Utah’s own Sen. Orrin Hatch has said. Reconciliation is basically a way to get a bill passed without subjecting it to a minority party filibuster (or an attempt to prevent a vote.) It’s funny that Sen. Hatch would say such things, because he has apparently changed his mind quite a bit since 1981 and 2001. To fully understand this we need to go back to 1974. It was a bad time for Republicans, having just lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate, partially due to tax increases under President Gerald Ford. They desperately needed new economic ideas.

It was at this time that a conservative economist by the name of Arthur Laffer introduced what we now know as the “trickle-down” theory to Dick Cheney, who was serving as White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld’s top assistant. This theory basically argues that tax cuts, especially for the richer population, will somehow create more tax revenues for the government and also help the poor somewhere down the line. It is supposed to be efficient. Turns out the theory is especially efficient (and convenient) for the rich, as seen by the widening gap between rich and poor in America over the past 30 years. But in 1974 this was no more than a theory with virtually no empirical evidence to back it up. Naturally, Cheney loved it. The theory was then passed on to the brass of the administration.

Long story short, the largest tax cut in history was pushed through Congress in 1981 by Republicans using reconciliation, the same method Hatch now condemns. Yes, Hatch was a senator at the time. This happened again in 2001 and 2003 with the Republicans using the reconciliation process to pass the Bush tax cuts, again providing “much-needed relief” for the rich. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected the Bush tax cuts would increase budget deficits $349 billion by the year 2013. Again, these cuts were passed with no empirical evidence that they would actually do what they were theorized to do by conservatives.

The hypocrisy continues, most recently with the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Democrats have been trying to rally their party around health care reform, Kennedy’s pet issue. For example, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) stated, “maybe Teddy’s passing will remind people once again that we are there to get a job done as he would do.” Dodd urged other congressmen to “bring … passions to the debate,” reiterating that it is a “job that needs to get done.” After this and other similar statements, Republicans accused Democrats of unfairly using sympathy to pass health care reform.

Once again,this is funny because, when Reagan passed away in 2004, Rush Limbaugh tried to compare Reagan’s war strategy (called the Strategic Defense Initiative) with the war in Iraq. He went as far as to say, “I really believe that if Reagan had been able, he would have put his hand on Bush’s shoulder and said to him, ‘Stay the course, George.’ I really believe that.” And we have all seen the Republican presidential debates since Reagan’s death where much of the discussion turns into an argument about which candidate most resembles Reagan, trying to sell themselves as true tax-cutters and war-fighters. Again, the hypocrisy runs rampant.

I do not pretend that Democrats are never hypocritical. A lot of times it seems like both parties just trade one-liners when the shoe is on the other foot. I just think Hatch and his cronies should be reminded of their own history so they don’t end up wasting more time than necessary trading political barbs. It’s an efficiency thing.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus. He loves Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.