My Response to the State of the Union

As I listened to the President speak about the problems facing our nation and how he intends to solve them I heard one phrase repeated over and over again - more government. I wondered why the President isn't listening to the American people. They don't want the government involved in every part of their life. They don't trust Washington to solve their problems any longer. The President has learned nothing from his failures over the last 12 months.

A year ago he delivered a speech to Congress regarding health care, education, and a stimulus package for the economy. Yet tonight he was again talking about health care, education, and a stimulus package for the economy that he is now calling a jobs package. After the American people rejected his health care proposal(s) and after his stimulus package was a failure in keeping the unemployment rate under 8%, he is still talking about health care legislation and spending billions of more dollars on government created jobs. The President, and the liberal leadership in Washington, just doesn't get it.

The American people do not want a closed door health care deal that involve billions of dollars in bribes for individual states and does not bring about true reform. Instead of a government run system, we need tort reform, access to purchase health insurance across state lines, and Health Care Savings Accounts.

While his proposal for a spending freeze is laudable, it does not go far enough. His spending freeze would save $250 billion over ten years, but our current monthly deficit is close to $200 billion. What we need are major, permanent cuts in our spending. The bloated bubble that is the federal deficit needs to be popped.

The President was again tonight on top of his oratorical game; however his substance was lacking and not what the American people are wanting. The President must learn that the people of this country need less of the government on their backs. When I go to Congress I will fight every day to make sure the American people are as free as possible to use their own ingenuity, because we are the ones that know best – not the party bosses in Washington.

To learn more, please visit: www.chuckforcongress.com

Follow me on Twitter: @chuck4congress

0
Your rating: None

Comments

 I do believe the president

 I do believe the president has called for a fiscal commission and republicans have turned that down. So it was over before it started. We don't want government in every part of our lives, however, it will only be government (with the right policies) that will get us out of this mess. We relied on the private sector and tax cuts and laissez-faire for 8 years and the jobs went overseas, our money went to Iraq, and our country was in neglect. So far republicans have no better ideas. 

I expect that we will not see the levels of employment for some 10 to 20 years. A lot of damage, ignorance, and arrogance has been done to our economy and it will take that long to get it back no matter who is president. 

And I don't know how people can purchase insurance if they don't have a job and also how to have health care savings accounts if they don't have jobs. I would say my home town probably has 30% or more unemployment. And I have seen no answer to this from republicans. 

Enough, already...

We relied on the private sector and tax cuts and laissez-faire for 8 years

Stop the nonsense.

1) The private sector IS America.

2) We haven't had laissez-faire in this country since the 1800s.

The Federal government CAUSED "this mess" by going outside its Constitutional bounds. Going even FURTHER outside those bounds is not the solution, it is only going to make it worse.

The only thing the Federal government can do is get in the way and siphon resources and resdistribute them. The only way to achieve sustainable growth (the key is SUSTAINABLE) is to get the government OFF the backs of the private sector and let them do what they do best.

Bob McDonnell gave you the answer last night. You just don't want to listen.

It's useless

To In Between, "laissez faire" does not mean what you and I know it means.

 Let's call it ignorance. Tax

 Let's call it ignorance. Tax cuts and "stay the course" and "free trade is good" while not doing anything with loss jobs and fixing our problems. Just sitting on tax cuts does not solve problems, but this is pretty much the agenda that republicans run on. Or on failed ideology. 

Greetings once more, Chuck!

I'm glad to hear that you don't think he's got what it takes to balance the budget. Why don't you go into some detail about what steps he might take?

Or, in other words and for the fifth time: What taxes would you raise and what programs would you cut to help balance the federal budget?

You can do this. Just click Reply. Or post a blog going into more detail, whatever you like. Because I think -- and you're still welcome to weigh in on this -- I think you've got absolutely nothing past not liking non-Medicare socialist health care, and you're hoping to ride that single issue into a Congressional seat.

Instead of a government run

Instead of a government run system, we need tort reform, access to purchase health insurance across state lines, and Health Care Savings Accounts.

How do these items address:

  • Pre-existing condition exclusions:  Currently, there are millions of people who can't purchase health insurance at any price due to pre-existing conditions; the luckiest of those with pre-existing conditions cannot even contemplate leaving a current employer that still offers a group plan (generally, in government, large corporations and unions) and are a job loss away from losing access to insurance completely.  How can the free market function best when workers must base all employment decisions on access to employer-provided health care?  How do small businesses and startups compete?  How do they benefit from not being able to access potential employees who may be the best and brightest in the talent pool, for lack of ability to offer health insurance?  I know small business owners who can't consider potential employees with pre-existing conditions because of the effect it would have on their group rates. 
  • Recissions:  How does the overall economy (other than health insurers' bottom lines) benefit from the number every year who are forced into bankruptcy when the insurance they have been paying for suddenly disappears as soon as they need it?  Let's not kid ourselves:  when they end up in the emergency room for critical care, who pays for that?  Taxpayers and others with health insurance, via our premiums and costs passed on through billing to insurance companies and individuals.  Hospitals are not, cannot and should not be expected to provide this treatment 'free' -- and they don't.  The claim that everyone has access to health care because they can go to an emergency room and be treated is a cynical, laughable, costly shell game -- there are no free lunches and we all end up paying anyway -- the GOP just wants to get away with not calling it a 'tax' so they can please the tax-cut crowd.  Nothing but a shell game and "a rose is a rose, by any other name."
  • Bending the cost curve:  Health care may be one-sixth of the economy (and growing all the time), but what about the other 5/6 of the economy?  Health care costs are crippling every other business, particularly small business, but increasingly even large corporations and governments, and obviously, unions.  Yes, tort reform can have some limited impact here.  I've seen estimates of 2 to 3% of costs.  Think that'll save us as the population ages?  CBO rated the GOP plan as more costly than the Dem plan, without increasing coverage to any significant degree.  Why on earth are you content to pay six times (at least) what citizens of other countries pay for the same medicine?  One way to achieve limited government is to achieve cost-efficient government.  How did the GOP giveaway to Big Pharma when Part D was enacted, when they refused to negotiate with the drug companies for Medicare drug costs as other countries do, bend the cost curve or effectuate limited or cost-efficient government?  Short, obvious answer:  it didn't do either.