Lamont has written an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about how conservative he is fiscally. In general this position is taken by liberals who support tax hikes and military cuts. Given the relative age of the supporters of this plan they don’t support Social Security or Medicare cuts. Because I had one of these people as a teacher I know their general talking points.
- Refer to debt numbers in absolute terms without reference to interest we’re paying on it or its size in relation to the GDP.
- Treat tax hikes as the long term solution to budgetary problems.
- Finally, though not with my teacher, support a largely mercantilistic set of plans for the economy.
In the past week, my victory in the Connecticut Senate primary has been labeled everything from the death knell of the Democratic Party to the signal of our party’s rebirth. Beneath all of this punditry is a question that I want to face directly: how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country. I ran at a time when people said “you can’t beat a three-term incumbent,” because I believed that President Bush, enabled by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had weakened our country at home and abroad. We’re weaker economically, because we’re more dependent on foreign energy and foreign capital. Our national security has also been weakened, because we stopped fighting a real war on terror when we made the costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq.
Note Lamont’s position that our economic strength depends on how much of capital is from the “Good Ole US of A” His point about Iraq being counterproductive may be true, but how does it weaken the war on terror. Is he suggesting that we should send all the troops from Iraq into Afghanistan to look for Bin Laden or is he saying bring the troops home to protect against domestic terror. No he’s saying bring the troops home to do nothing with them. Leave a nation of 23 million to the terrorists simply because we don’t want to accept a small cost in troops for the benefit of the dead terrorists and the money they are spending there. I would say that the money spent in Iraq on terror is far worse spent than it could be. However, Al-Qeada has no choice. They can’t give us victory in Iraq by leaving so they have to spend much of their money in a sinkhole. Actually it isn’t wasted money if the U.S. pulls out. Then you’ve drastically lowered the chance of a popular uprising in any Arab country and propped your nation-state supporters up.
In 1984, with a loan from People’s Bank, I started Campus TeleVideo from scratch. Our offer was unique: Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served. From the moment I filled out that loan application, I’ve been in every part of the business–pulling cable, hiring workers, picking a good health-care plan, closing deals, listening to customers and fixing problems. It’s been profitable, and it’s been instructive, a quintessentially American experience. Here, entrepreneurs have the freedom to be successful in ways the rest of the world admires. These defining lessons of my business experience are central in my campaign: identifying the challenges that face our state and offering real solutions. Something clearly worked, because the voters decided to do what our Founding Fathers envisioned; they put their trust not in a career politician but in a concerned citizen and experienced businessman who promises to rock the boat down in Washington.
Lamont obviously is trying to establish his credentials as a self-made millionaire here. Conveniently ignored is his being heir to a fortune from a chairman of J.P. Morgan that most unliberal of institutions. Also where has his idea come from that the Founders were not in favor of there being career politicians. There idea of a Senator was basically Lamont not Lieberman, but not the way Lamont puts it. There idea of a Senator was a rich heir who was classically educated and didn’t have any financial responsibilities. The idea of a Senator starting at the bottom of the political totem pole was anathema to them. That was for the House or the State Legislature, not the Senate. The Founders were great men , but they were true democrats they were elitists who were smart enough to keep themselves from having too much power.
Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served.
I requote this to show how disingenous he is. He is trying to portray himself as a free-marketeer, but he supports universal heath care the proverbial one-size-fits-all-menu.
Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It’s getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America’s competitive advantages–if our education system fails our children and our employers, we’ll lose the future. That’s why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can’t afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That’s why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That’s why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.
This is sort of incoherent on terms of policy but his website may give some clues. Employees and businesses alike are paying more and more for health insurance, and receiving less and less health care security. More than one in ten Connecticut residents lack health insurance and many others are underinsured. Most of the uninsured are working, but don’t get coverage at work and can’t afford it on their own.
The term under-insured makes absolutely no sense to me. All health-care provides catastrophic coverage. That is the point of the coverage. Nobody buys health care to protect against the $100 check-up. Now that these “under-insured” have some coverage they’re not going to get health care for free. Therefore, they have the right to take their workplace compensation in cash instead of benefits. His health care plan is for the Federal government to provide catastrophic coverage to all. Considering that the rich live longer irrespective of health care (less smoking and drugs and alchohol) this is yet another case of a government tax on the poor. Of course his plan along will be paid for by leaving Iraq. Considering that he pays for 5 separate plans with the money from Iraq and Congress isn’t paying for the War in Iraq right now anyway it seems hard to believe he is going to avoid massive debt increases or tax cuts if his plans are adopted. Also he ignores the cost to those near minimum wage from this bill. How many will be fired because they aren’t worth the health care. How many jobs will go to offshore, taking with them tax dollars quite possibly equal to the cost for the war in Iraq.
Providing such a program would lower health care premiums, and eliminate incentives to keep sick people out of insurance pools.
This is from his Health Care proposal on preventive care. One of the reasons that more preventative care isn’t given is because buisnesses are forced to provide so much useless care as part of health care that preventative care is prohibitively expensive. As for keeping poor people out of insurance pools, this is a requirement if you want to keep people from going uninsured. Why get insurance now if for a modest increase in costs you can get some once you have the pre-existing condition.
We waste billions of dollars through inefficiencies in our current system. Through smart, patient-focused cost controls, increased reliance on public programs and pooling, and redirection of current spending, we will have many of the funds needed to cover everyone. Any additional resources should be provided based on principles of fairness, efficiency and shared responsibility.
This is a classic line from his proposal if only because he is saying that by bringing the Federal government into health care you will reduce inefficiencies.
He then talks about lowering prescription drug prices. His idea of effectively instituting price controls would have long term costs in the tens of millions- lives that is. I want ot have the miracle drugs of the 21st century ready for me. America is subsidizing the world’s drugs right now which is unfortunate, unfortunately if we stop subsidizing them and demand subsidies ourselves we leave ourselves with little hope for future drug development. The only developer left will be the Federal government and that isn’t a future I want to live in.
As for his education plan which is better than testing, its preschool. Free preschool and after-school programs. These are two programs which have no proven effect on student incomes or employment levels. Basically they’re a sop to parents who want the government to start giving free day care earlier in the child’s life and later in the day. But of course this can be paid for by leaving Iraq now, this instant, leaving all the equipment behind as we run for the border and board the helicopters above the embassy.