Volume 5, Issue 13
As an admirer of America, President Sarkozy was warning us not to follow the French government services model. The issue in reforming the French budget dealt less with the issues of unions, wages, business taxes, and services, but more with the overall need for restructuring how general services were delivered. Such change, in and of itself, struck fear in the French citizens’ hearts. They had breached the tipping point of over 50% of the voting population not willing to support and trust change. France struggles today with the same issues as Brexit looms.
Last Friday, the Republicans in the House of Representatives pulled from consideration the American Health Care Act of 2017, a bill to reform Obamacare. They didn’t have the votes for passage. Conservative Republicans wanted total repeal of the current health care law, believing that the proposed reform was too expensive and nothing more than Obamacare light. Moderate Republicans were opposed to reforms that cut or restricted health care services to key constituents. Progressives were opposed because they were, in fact, in favor of Obamacare. Each group blamed the other. Partisanship appeared to be part of the analysis for defeat.
Public opinion polls on Thursday evening prior to the vote found only 17% of the American public in favor of the Republican bill. How can that be? Donald Trump was elected on his promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. He won a stunning upset victory in 2016. Why was there not greater support for at least a first step of reform on which the President had weighed in and risked his credibility?
The reality is that the American public’s aggregate need for critical government services is now approaching the tipping point of which Nicolas Sarkozy warned.
The country may be split 50-50 on a long list of issues, including the budget, the environment, immigration, education, social issues, religious issues, health care, and many others. The debate on the reform or expansion of government policy largely falls along partisan lines. The only agreement on the current structure and cost of government services is that, in their current framework, they are unsustainable. Progressives would argue that to provide critical services requires total government management. They ignore the history of nations who have tried this approach, only to face bankruptcy and rationing of government services. Conservatives fail to explain to the American public the concept of ‘a rising tide raises all boats.’ In other words, how restructuring the system will ultimately provide a more abundant benefits package for all citizens. Further, they are insensitive to the tutoring that is required to explain the transition process. Without explanation of the big picture from any partisan group, the public is left to trust government leadership through a transition that they do not understand and fear that they cannot survive.
Let’s look at the numbers. Roughly 22.5 % of the American public is on full welfare, 4.5% receive unemployment benefits, 3.5% of the public relies on disability and family benefits to augment income, and approximately 18% work for a government entity. This adds up to approximately 48.5% of the American public relying directly on government for a primary source of income. The 18% provide critical need services to the country. It includes the military, teachers, policemen, fireman, judges, district attorneys, county officials, and so on. The country could not function without their services. This is not to imply that the others are not also deserving. Certainly, veterans on disability income could never be fully repaid. The point, however, is that this number represents households, not necessarily just individuals. To cut, restructure, or reform the budget impacts members of these households in a way that gives them pause, particularly when government has failed in fulfilling past promises.
This number does not include individuals on Social Security or benefit payments made in support of pension funds guaranteed by the United States Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation paid to retirees through failed single employer pension plans. About 12-15% of the American population now receives Social Security retirement benefits.
Individuals falling into the above categories have different opinions on free enterprise, more government, and policy issues. But when the issue of a critical need service is threatened or not fully explained to their understanding, many are not in favor of change. This does not mean that they are selfish or that they don’t care about the next generation. It means that they are questioning programs for which elected leadership has not explained the ultimate goal, destination or purpose of the reform. Also, elected leadership has failed to give them any assurances that partisanship will not get in the way of prosperity for all upon ongoing implementation of other government reforms. In addition, others in the workforce, especially those working for small businesses, are concerned about access to and cost of health care insurance.
That is the reality of the analysis of why 83% were opposed to the American Health Care Act of 2017.
The concern now becomes, leaving Obamacare in place does not address the impending crisis of the unsustainability of health care services in America today. Progressives seem resolved that the default position of total government control is acceptable. And most even believe it’s inevitable.
Conservatives have not adequately explained why reform is absolutely necessary. Deficits and accumulated debt have eclipsed 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The United States is the world’s investment of last resort. We are blessed to be able to attract international capital, but we cannot print and borrow money forever. To walk away from health care reform now is to relegate the future of a critical service to the ultimate conclusion with which the progressives are in agreement, a single-payor system. When a vacuum is left to form, nature abhors it and she will fill it with something – maybe something that we can’t live with.
The responsibility lies with elected officials of government to provide leadership and explain solutions to avoid the Sarkozy warning of the tipping point of no return. Each of us, as adult citizens, has a responsibility to understand the ultimate threat of too much government that costs too much, both in money and freedom.
If ‘eternal vigilance is the price of freedom,’ then recognition of reality is the price of eternal vigilance.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?