HEALTH CARE VOTE TOMORROW

Here are some thoughts on the health care bill (Which one?) that's kicking around in congress. My question is why are we going to bring about this debacle without most of the congress people having read what they are voting on? This bill is a joke and will saddle us with debt for the foreseeable future.

These congress people are without a doubt a disgrace to the institution. I always look back in history to judge current politicians and the current ones don't stack up. As I listen to politicians from both parties I'm shocked by the lack of quality. Both parties seem to pander to the lowest denominator in all of us. The Dems give out money, favors, and then the much ballyhooed and loved Stupak amendment. The Republicans are inept and a nonentity. The Dems will pull the rug out from under them in conference when they ditch the amendement and restore federal funding for abortions, contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Talk about a bait and switch!

Let's look at some history. In 1935, debate began on the Clark amendment to the Social Security Act. It was about a private option vs. a government option for Social Security insurance. Senator Clark of Missouri was convinced that the private, free market option would outperform the government option in the market. He was right with a return on the government option of about 2% to 8% for the private option.

Allow me to quote from the book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Burton Folsom Jr. (If you read this book you will truly understand the New Deal and the damage it has done to America. This is a great book with a lot of information. Read it.

"When the Clark Amendment was debated before the Senate in 1935, the advocates of a government monopoly were on the defensive. One of them, Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., of Wisconsin complained, 'If we shall adopt this amendment, the government having determined to set up a federal system of old age [insurance], will provide in its own bill creating that system, for competition, which in the end may destroy the federal system.' LaFollette was perceptive ...The Senate decided that workers ought to have a choice and voted 51-35 to make the Clark Amendment part of the social security law."

How did FDR respond? Check this out. "When the House passed a social security bill without the Clark amendment, Roosevelt and his supporters used a parliamentary tactic to gain victory. The House-Senate conference committee met to work out a compromise bill, and naturally the Clark Amendment was the main point of debate. The committee decided to submit a final bill to Roosevelt with the government monopoly intact. But they agreed to appoint a special joint legislative committee to study the Clark Amendment and report to Congress the next year on how best to provide for competition. But after the government monopoly was instituted, the promised meeting in 1936 was never held."

A similiar scenario will play out tomorrow in the Senate. We will have a bill that the majority of Americans don't want, jammed down our throats.

The question breaks down to whether a couple of Senators, notably Landrieu from Louisiana and Lincoln from Arkansas will listen to their constituents or to Harry Reid. The wrong vote could cost both of them their careers as their constituents are against this bill.

Thomas Paine was right, "These are the times that try men's souls."