Some Workers Are More Equal Than Others

George Orwell, the brilliant English author, is best known for his dystopian novel 1984, describing a future in which a “Big Brother” government absolutely controls its citizens, including their very thoughts. A lesser known, but equally important Orwell work is his short novel, Animal Farm, a brilliant satire on communism. In Animal Farm, a group of farm animals throw off the oppressive bonds of Farmer Jones and claim the farm for themselves. The animals, led by the smartest and most organized animals, the pigs, establish their own society, based on the “Seven Commandments of Animalism”, the most important of which is the seventh commandment, “All animals are equal.” As the story progresses, [SPOILER ALERT!] the pigs wrest more and more control. Finally, the animals awake one morning and find that the seventh commandment has been amended to read, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Animal Farm was written as a satire, but today we can also see it as prophecy. This week, President Obama and leaders of the House and Senate met for a full-day meeting with heads of the labor unions. The labor unions have been vocal in their opposition to a component of the “health-care reform” bill that would tax so-called Cadillac health plans – those plans given to employees by employers that have premiums greater than $8,000 for a worker and $12,000 for a family (this includes both the workers and employers contributions to the plan.) The unions have a very good reason for their opposition – most union employees have such a plan.

It is now being reported that an agreement has been tentatively struck which would exempt those Cadillac health plans that were the result of a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, two workers, making exactly the same wage, receiving exactly the same benefits would be taxed differently solely because one of those workers belongs to a labor union while the other does not.

Apparently, according to the Democratic leadership in Washington, you do not matter as much if you do not belong to a union as you do if you belong to a union. All workers are equal, but some workers are more equal than others. This should be of no surprise to anyone. In Washington, your needs are not important. What is important are the votes you can deliver to those who are in power. The unions are a reliable constituent of the Democratic Party that deliver a lot of votes and a lot of money. Ergo, they are important and worth protecting. You are not.

This is yet another result of identity politics. We have all been divided into various categories – racial minority or majority, rich or middle class, gay or straight, management or labor, union or non-union, and the list goes on and on. Our government has ceased representing the country as a whole and now only represents those who can help them get re-elected. Do not think for a minute that the politicians in Washington have your best interests in mind, the only interest for which they are looking out is their own.

This “health-care reform” bill is only the latest and most egregious example of that. The persistent bribes in order to secure votes and continue the campaign contributions flowing attest to that. That is why the people of Louisiana and Nebraska receive enormous benefits that are not accorded to other states. Not because those states are in any particular dire need of those benefits - Nebraska has the eleventh best economy in the country - but because the bill is so bad that it was necessary to offer those bribes to ensure passage. That is why, if you are a blue collar worker, even though you probably get paid less and receive poorer benefits than your union co-horts, you get to pay the bill for their health care plans.

Chances are that you are already a second-class citizen of this country. Chances are that, while everyone is equal, you are less equal than some other groups. If not, doubtless you soon will be. Is this really good for our country? I think not.

At the end of Animal Farm, the pigs go into partnership with the previously despised and discredited humans. As the other animals looked through the windows of the farmhouse where the pigs and the humans were drinking and playing cards together, they realized that the pigs and the humans looked more and more alike until they found that they were no longer able to tell the difference.

Reid, Racism, and a Double Standard

Is there any politician that puts their size 11 in their mouth more often than Harry Reid? I mean, this is the guy who, when touting the new Capitol Visitor’s Center said that at least Congress wouldn’t have to smell the tourists, anymore: "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true." In December, Reid likened those who are opposed to the governmental take-over of our health care system to slave holders and those who would deny women the right to vote and to deny civil rights. Of course, health care “reform” protestors, to Reid, are “evil-mongers.”

Now, Dirty Harry is backpedaling over comments he made during the Presidential campaign saying that Barack Obama could potentially win since he is “light-skinned” and “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Yesterday, Reid gave the obligatory apology saying, “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments. I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda."

It might be instructive to remember what Reid said when then Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott faced a similar situation. At a 100^th birthday party for long-time Senator and former segregationist Presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," In spite of a very similar apology, Lott was forced by the party to step down from his leadership position. Commenting on Lott’s resignation, Reid said, "He had no alternative. If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play."

Of course, there is a huge difference in the Harry Reid and Trent Lott situations, namely that amid calls for resignation, the Republican party heeded those calls and forced Lott out of his position while the Democrats are rallying around Reid. Diane Feinstein said, "First of all, all of us are imperfect. Clearly, this was a mistake. Clearly, the leader misspoke and he's also apologized.... The president has accepted the apology and it would seem to me the matter should be closed."

Harry Reid is not the first Democrat to utter racially insensitive quotes. The human gaffe-machine, Joe Biden said of Obama, "[He is] the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Biden also previously raised eyebrows when he famously stated, “You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking." And, of course, let’s not forget former KKK Exalted Cyclops (really!) Robert Byrd, Senator from West Virginia who once stated in an interview, “There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time.” As is happening in the Reid instance, these statements are defended by being misunderstood, unintentional, and vestiges of childhood speech.

Maybe they are, I don’t know. I do think it is interesting that Republicans don’t receive this benefit of the doubt. When Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” during an Obama Presidential address, Maureen Dowd read his mind to say that what he meant was really, “You lie, boy!” Liberal intellectual, Jeneane Garofalo called the tea-partiers, “Racist red-necks,” and added, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." I notice that we haven’t heard from Ms. Dowd or Ms. Garofalo on the Reid comments.

Is Harry Reid a racist? I don’t know. I suspect he is not a racist, merely just an incompetent boob. Barack Obama really is light skinned and I don’t know if that helped with the electorate. I would like to think not, but maybe it did. In any case, the comments were stupid and offensive to a large number of people – or at least offensive when uttered by a conservative.

Conservatives get tired of being branded racists for daring to be conservative. The same people who opposed Hillary-Care are now being branded racists for opposing Obama-care. It is a term that is too easily thrown around and is too unevenly applied. In my opinion, this should not cause Harry Reid his leadership position since he has been able to retain it in spite of all the other incredibly stupid things he’s uttered and done. But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

If we are so quick to use the term “racism”, let’s just make sure the terms are equally applied.

Taxation Without Representation - 21st Century Style

As any schoolchild can tell you, well, at least the schoolchildren who were educated before patriots like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Nathan Hale were edited out of our textbooks in order to provide room for such historically significant luminaries as Michael Jackson and Oprah Winfrey (unfortunately, I am not making this up), the primary cause for the American Revolution was taxation without representation. Our forefathers found themselves staggering under onerous taxes, imposed by a British political system in which they had no input or influence. This gross unfairness was sufficient for the colonies to revolt against their own country and declare their independence.

Unfortunately, universal suffrage is only a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States. In spite of Abigail Adams’ entreaties to her husband, John, a delegate to the Continental Congress to “remember the ladies,” it wasn’t until 1920 that the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed women’s right to vote. In 1870, the 15^th Amendment guaranteed that the right to vote could not be denied by race. Even so, many minorities were prevented the vote by state sanctioned “work-arounds”, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson, in conjunction with the Republican legislature, overcame the protests of Southern Democrats to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since that time, although there have been a few, isolated cases of voter intimidation or suppression, most recently by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia in the 2008 Presidential election, there is near universal acceptance that, with a few exceptions (those under age 18, convicted felons, etc.), every American citizen has a right to vote for representation to their federal government.

Once the people have elected their Senator or Representative, as long as the elected representative meets Constitutional criteria, they are invariably seated in Congress, and rightly so. The people have the right to elect whom they choose and to not allow that person to represent his constituents seriously undermines the Constitution. Even when the Congressperson is in a minority, she has a right and responsibility to represent her constituents and allow their voice to be heard in debate. Refusal to allow any representative to participate in the lawmaking process runs counter to the principals on which this country is founded.

Unfortunately, under the Obama-Reid-Pelosi troika, that is exactly what has happened. Bills are being written in back rooms without allowing the input of minority voices and debate. Utilizing arcane rules, when the bills are presented to the full chamber, debate is severely limited and the opportunity for introducing amendments is prohibited. The bills are introduced at the last possible moment, not allowing members to read the bills before voting on them and, sometimes, as in the case of the cap-and-tax bill, the bill is still being written as it is being voted on. If not unconstitutional, this at the very least undermines the very spirit of the Constitution and the American ideal. This, in spite of Democratic promises that this would be the most transparent administration and legislative process, ever.

The most recent example of this abuse is the announcement that there will be no conference committee to reconcile the differences in the House and Senate health care reform bills. Normally, a bill passes the House and a similar bill passes the Senate, then a conference committee is formed to hammer out differences between the two bills. Members of the conference committee are appointed from both the majority and minority parties. Once the conference committee reaches agreement, the final bill is sent back to both the House and Senate, where it is voted on. If it passes both chambers of Congress, it is then sent to the President where, if he signs it, it will become law.

In the case of the current bills, however, Congress plans to depart from this tradition. Instead, the administration and the leaders of the House and Senate will meet behind closed doors to try to hammer out a plan. Republicans will not be allowed in the room. When a compromise is reached, Harry Reid will take the bill to the Senate Democratic caucus and Nancy Pelosi will do the same for the House Democratic caucus. Again, Republicans will not be allowed in the room. Each Democratic caucus will have the opportunity to give suggestions, accept bribes, or have their arm twisted, until there is a final agreement. After the compromise is reached, the final bill will be introduced to each house of Congress for a final vote, probably at the last minute and, almost certainly, before Republicans or the press has a chance to find out what is in the bill.

Let me reiterate the process – first, a bill is written behind closed doors without the input, or even debate, by the minority. It is voted upon before anyone has the opportunity to read it, and then a compromise will be reached behind closed doors without the input of any of the minority party. In other words, a bill to revise 1/6 of our economy, including a rash of new taxes, will be passed without representation of a substantial part of the country. As someone whose duly elected representative to the House of Representatives was not allowed any input or debate on this bill, I have a difficult time seeing how the taking of my taxes is legitimate since I was denied representation.

The first time this happened, there was a revolution. Hopefully, the American people will retain the spirit of the founding fathers and will revolt at the ballot box.

Responsible Discrimination

As a physician, if I was presented with a child having back or bone pain and shortness of breath, and both parents were of African descent, one of the first tests I would order would be a test for sickle cell disease. If both parents were of Mediterranean descent, I might not initially order a sickle cell test, but it would certainly be in order if my initial testing proved fruitless. If one of the parents were white, I would not order a sickle cell test at all.

Is this discriminatory? Absolutely. My patients expect me to discriminate between diseases that they are likely to have versus diseases that they are unlikely to have, based on my knowledge and experience. To do anything less would be abrogation of my responsibility as a physician. If I indiscriminately order tests that have little or no possibility of being positive, it wastes critical health care dollars, can delay the diagnosis, and clogs up the system for everyone else. Believe it or not, in some quarters, this is controversial. Just Google “race-based medicine” for a number of opinions on why this is so. But I believe that most of us would agree that this type of discrimination is entirely justified. It is evidence based and non-malignant. It ensures that medical care is tailored to benefit the patient and society at large.

On New Year’s Eve, one of my Facebook friends posted the following status:

"Protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans. That must now change decisively. It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information." -Newt Gingrich. Disgusting; I do not see how this is morally defensible...

I admire my friend’s passion for social justice, but I disagree with his conclusion. I believe that it is not only morally defensible to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information, but that it is morally indefensible not to do so.

A government’s first responsibility is the protection of its citizens. To endanger its citizens for the purpose of ensuring that someone’s feelings are not hurt is an abrogation of the mandate of a government. The preamble of the United States Constitution explicitly states this purpose of establishing the government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the case of terrorism, the government has not only the right, but also the responsibility to be prejudicial against citizens of other countries, if necessary to protect its own citizens. This is not to say that we should intentionally harass non-citizens without cause, but that is not what Newt said. He specifically said that we must “actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information.” [italics mine.] No one who is not a citizen of the United States has a right to enter our country without permission. If we have the slightest reason to believe that someone may have terrorist connections or sympathies, it is essential that those suspicions be totally allayed before that person is allowed entrance into the United States.

These protective measures may necessarily include profiling. There is no question that over the last decade, the vast majority of terrorist incidents in the world, and against the United States, have been conduction by young Muslim men. That is not to say that women or members of other religions cannot conduct terrorist activity, but it is irresponsible for the government not to concentrate its attention on the group that is most likely to conduct a terrorist act. To do otherwise diverts resources and tells our enemies that we are not serious about combating terrorism.

This is not just an Obama administration issue. It started during the Bush administration, after 9/11, when we saw Norwegian grandmothers going through intrusive screening at the same rate as young, Middle Eastern men – maybe more in our attempt not to appear discriminatory – and we all had our fingernail clippers confiscated. Since the Richard Reid shoe-bombing incident, we all have to take off our shoes to go through security. Now, since the panty-bombing attempt, we can’t go to the restroom or have a blanket or a book on or laps during the last hour of a flight. The TSA under the Obama administration is merely continuing the dangerous policies of the Bush administration.

As Christopher Hitchens said, “Why are we so bad at detecting the guilty and so good at collectively punishing the innocent?” I think the reason is that we are unwilling to use our collective knowledge and experience to do those things that are necessary to effectively and efficiently use the information available to concentrate on those few people who are the risk. Instead, in our politically correct society, we are more concerned with sparing feelings than saving lives.

Why this is so controversial, I don’t know. In medicine, we know that to discriminate based on knowledge and evidence is essential in order to save lives. Why should we be so reluctant to do the same when it comes to air safety and national security?

Predictions for 2010

Finally, we are about to put behind us 2009, a year which almost all of us will be happy to forget. As we look ahead to 2010, we can only hope that the next year, and decade, will be better than the last. Whether it will be, is open to question. With that in mind, here are my predictions for 2010 – some serious, some not so much:

The New Orleans Saints will rally in the second half to narrowly beat the Indianapolis Colts in a Super Bowl that will live up to its name.

The summer will be very mild and the winter will be harsh, conditions that the global warming advocates will use as proof that we are on the brink of global warming annihilation.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign from the Supreme Court. President Obama will nominate a very liberal judge to the Supreme Court. This will be vigorously opposed by the Republicans, who will be able to do absolutely nothing about it.

A major terrorist attack in the United States will succeed. The Obama administration will use it as proof that the Bush administration’s policies failed. Janet Napolitano will assure us that “the system worked.”

Tiger Woods will return to golf and win the British Open. All the sponsors who previously dropped him will return.

The Republicans will win back many seats in the house in the midterm elections, but not enough to regain control. Those defeated Blue Dog Democrats who voted for Obamacare will all wind up with jobs in the Obama administration or in liberal think tanks.

Prior to the mid-term elections, at least four more Democrats will cross the aisle and become Republicans.

Some team will win the World Series and no one will really care.

Rap music will remain crap.

Janet Napolitano, up until now Teflon, will finally be fired.

Joe Biden will slowly be re-allowed back into the public eye. He will inevitably say something incredibly stupid and be yanked back into obscurity by the administration.

The Los Angeles Lakers will repeat as NBA champions. Kobe Bryant will remain the biggest whiner in basketball.

There will be a bailout of newspapers, thus ending any premise of subjective journalism.

Harry Reid and Chris Dodd will be soundly defeated in their Senate elections. They will promptly receive jobs in the administration or as lobbyists.

More scandals involving Rep. Charlie Rangel will come to light, but nothing will come of them.

The economy will continue to flatline. The President will blame the Bush Administration.

A major sex scandal will involve the Obama administration. This will be largely ignored by the Main Stream Media.

Tony Stewart will narrowly edge out Jimmy Johnson for the NASCAR championship, garnering far more attention and endorsements than Jimmy Johnson ever did, in spite of the fact that he has had one of the most incredible runs in sports history.

I will not be offered a position in the Obama administration.

John Thune and Mitt Romney will emerge as leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination for 2012.

Notre Dame will be one of the year’s biggest surprises in college football, ending the season ranked in the top 10 under new head coach, Brian Kelly.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, will resign in protest of President Obama’s continued conciliatory approach to Iran. She will prepare to run for her prior Senate seat or challenge Obama in 2012.

There will be another major scandal involving global warming scientists. It will receive about as much attention by the mainstream media as the first one did.

Realizing that criticizing Rush Limbaugh is a losing proposition, the new favorite whipping boy for the Obama administration will be Glenn Beck. In response, the Glenn Beck show will continue to rise in the ratings and at least two more major scandals will emerge as the result of Beck’s reporting.

ACORN will continue to function as if nothing ever happened.

In conference committee, unions will be exempted from the taxes on “Cadillac” health care plans in Obamacare. This will cost at least 3 representatives their seats in the midterm elections.

My golf game will not improve, my novel will only slightly progress, I will continue to be a Facebook addict, and I will lose 100 lbs. by the end of the year.

Have a happy New Year, everyone!

Letter to my Senators

This is a letter that I just sent one of my state Senators, Carl Levin. I will send Sen. Debbie Stabenow a similar letter.

Sen. Levin,

I am not entirely certain why I am writing this as I don't expect you to take it seriously, anyway. This Omnibus Health Care Bill is a travesty in many ways. It will doubtlessly raise the cost of medicine, add to the deficit (despite the mathematical maneuverings of Congress in paying for 10 years of medical care with 14 years of fees and increased taxes), it will decrease the quality of medical care, and it punishes those of us who work in the health care field.

Add to that the prostitution of Sens. Nelson and Landrieu (and who knows who else) and their vote selling, and this is a bill that should never see the light of day. We, the citizens of the United States, should be able to expect better from our elected representatives.

Jeff Chesnut, DO

Senators for Sale

A story has it that George Bernard Shaw walked up to a lady at a party and said, “Madam, if I gave you $50 million, would you sleep with me?”

“Of course,” she replied.

“How about if I gave you $10?” asked Shaw.

“Mr. Shaw,” she said, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”

Shaw replied, “We’ve already established what kind of woman you are. All we are doing now is haggling over the price.”

P.J. O’Rourke was correct when he termed the United States Congress “A Parliament of Whores”. Yesterday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) became just the latest United States Senator to demonstrate the price for which he is willing to sell his vote. Nelson was reputedly a pro-life Senator who had stated that his conscience would not allow him to support the latest iteration of the current Omnibus Health Care Bill unless it contained strong prohibitions against using taxpayer funds for abortions.

Most pro-life advocates are such because we feel that abortion is a moral evil, the taking of an innocent life. It is a deep-seated conviction, not one that is customarily used as a negotiating tool. Sen. Nelson, however, went into a back room with the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to discuss this issue of conscience. He didn’t come out with the anti-abortion language he desired. In fact, he didn’t come out with anti-abortion language, at all. The language to which Nelson acquiesced promises that each state may individually choose whether or not federal taxpayer money will be used to provide coverage of abortions in the government’s insurance exchange. (Incidentally, the mechanism for how the states will decide this issue is not detailed, but you can bet it will not be left up to the voters.)

Any residual pangs of conscience that Nelson may have felt were apparently assuaged by another little side agreement resulting from the closed-door meeting. It seems that Medicare will be extended to everyone who makes less than 133% of the poverty level. Now that may be perfectly reasonable but, with Medicare, every state has to pay a percentage, typically about 33-50%, of that expanded coverage.

Every state, that is, except Nebraska.

Yes, you read that correctly. That means that if you live, as I do, in the People’s Republic of Michigan, with the worst economy in the country and an unemployment rate of almost 15%, your tax dollars will be paying for Medicare for the citizens of the great state of Nebraska (11^th best economy; 4.5% unemployment rate.) Nelson also scored some additional concessions for Nebraska, some regulation exemptions for physician owned hospitals and others, but the Medicare deal is the biggie.

(By the way, can we just drop the phrase “Pro-life Democrat Senator”? I think it has been amply demonstrated that there is no such creature.)

Of course, it would be unfair to single out Sen. Nelson for this type of extortion. Earlier in this process, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a “conservative” Democrat walked away with a deal so outrageous that it has earned the sobriquet, The Louisiana Purchase. It seems that Sen. Landrieu also had a crisis of conscience about voting for a bill that will almost certainly raise insurance rates, decrease quality and accessibility of health care, and cost the country trillions of dollars. Her guilt was salved by a provision written into the bill granting $100 million in Medicare subsidies to all states in which every county or parish were declared disaster areas within the preceding 7 fiscal years. Guess which one and only state in the US qualifies? If you said, “Louisiana,” you win the grand prize. And since these are matching funds, Landrieu correctly bragged, “I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation and it is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix." Just to prove she has a sense of humor, Landrieu denied that this was the reason she decided to change her vote.

These are only the payoffs that we know of. Why don’t we know what other items may be in this bill? Because no one, except Harry Reid, has seen the bill, yet. That’s right, the bill over which the Senate has been debating is not the bill on which they will be voting. Only in Washington can this make an iota of sense. Sen. Reid plans of producing the bill at the last possible moment, just like the “stimulus” bill and the cap-and-tax bill, so that the Senators and, more importantly, the watchdogs and the media will not have time to study the bill before the vote.

Now, there is a huge rush to pass this bill before the Senate breaks for Christmas. In fact, according to Senate rules, the Senate cannot vote on the bill until Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Because health care is in such a crisis that people will be dying in the street until they get the new and improved Obamacare? If that were the case, why does the bill not even go into effect until 2014 (though we will start paying for it next year? How else can the Office of Management and Budget claim that it will not increase the deficit during its first 10 years? It is because we pay for 14 years and get coverage for 10.) No, the reason that Dirty Harry and crew are anxious to pass this is that it is a dog and they know it. They do not want to have happen what happened during the fall recess when members of Congress were confronted by their angry constituents over the bill. They want to go home with a fait accompli. Plus, 2010 is an election year and Congress is betting that the people’s memories will be short. They don’t want to be involved in this dispute in an election year.

Over the next several weeks, expect to hear of additional back-room deals, vote selling, and extortion. The Democrats know that passing this bill will cost them seats in Congress. Watch how many those “Blue Dog” Democrats that are voted out in 2010 land jobs in the Obama administration or liberal Washington think tanks. I suspect that if the public knew about all the deals that have been and will be struck, they would be appalled. This is the very reason that, according to the Gallup polling agency, Congressional approval ratings have been hovering around 25%. It is time for the public to get disgusted enough to send Congress to the unemployment line.

After all, it doesn’t matter how much she costs, beneath it all, a whore is still a whore.