Thoughts on the updated status of KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents of 2010…

Recent primary results have stamped home the message that KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents are in imminent trouble politically. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, our #1 Senator to watch, lost badly to Representative Joe Sestak by a margin of 8 percentage points. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas barely held a plurality in her 2 point victory and now faces a hotly contested runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. And finally, just over a week ago, now former Senator Bob Bennett of Utah failed to make the top two at the Utah GOP Nomination Convention, falling to Tim Bridgewater Mike Lee, and stamping a fail sign on 3 out of the top 5 most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Nonetheless, May has been a challenge for all politicians facing challenges from their left and right respectively.

The other two incumbents on our list, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Michael Bennet of Colorado, must focus intently on the looming November election. Despite Burr’s big primary win, and Bennet’s likely nomination in August, as freshman Senator’s they will face the growing challenge of a strong anti-incumbent sentiment amongst the American electorate. The bottom line is that change message of 2008 lives on in varying forms, and those who have positioned themselves to deliver that message in the face of establishment candidates are primed to win big come November. Both the Tea Party on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, have already impacted the primary season, and the pressure has quickly shifted towards the few remaining moderates in Congress, a disappearing breed, to remain attractive to voters in an election season clearly defined by historic pressure from the fringes of both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

America’s social political dynamic has skewed so far to the right over the past thirty years that the liberal left is now positioned in the old center, and the socially conservative right is nearly radical in nature when compared to the conservatives of the 1980’s and prior. Therefore, this election cycle, where many moderate incumbents are vulnerable to defeat by their more liberal or conservative counterparts, should prove to be one that sees all five of KTI’s listed incumbents lose their respective seats in the Senate. These formerly popular individuals have seen the political tide shift to the fringes at their expense. Though the trends always seem to be corrected over time, the fact is that 2010 will go down as yet another change election. Americans are clearly done with the stalemate that has come to define the US Senate, and as victims of poor timing and a hostile political climate, those who are considered insiders, such as Specter and Bennet, are likely to find themselves sitting on the sidelines come 2011.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/

Thoughts on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act…

Upon the introduction of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, or S.1733, by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Independent Joe Lieberman, it has become apparent that Senate Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, who are in favor of the proposed legislation, are not willing to take a vote on what should be a nonpartisan bill before the November election comes to pass. In addition, for political cover, these same politicians are using the BP oil spill as the excuse to delay debate on the issue, which is ironic because the bill should be amended to contain provisions to address the prevention of future spills through investment in alternative energy resources and better standards for protecting our oceans and fishing communities. Therefore, let’s take a closer look at the details and the prospects of the bill becoming law this year.

The bill contains numerous provisions aimed at reducing US greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions by 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, while also setting up a cap and trade system to set standards for GHS emission allowances. In addition, the bill sets up several new offices to develop new technologies and methods to harness power safely and to advocate on behalf of consumer’s energy needs. These include the creation of the Carbon Storage Research Corporation, an Office of Consumer Advocacy within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment, a Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, and a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center within the United States Geological Survey. These new offices and panels will work with the guidance and framework of new target programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Incentives Program, to create the foundation necessary to implement a complex set of new environmental policies.

Despite the grim prospects of Republican cooperation in the passing of the bill this year, the formal introduction of the bill by two Senate power players will undoubtedly put the spotlight on the environment precisely at a time where oil is spilling uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation, despite desperate calls for comprehensive immigration reform, may end up taking precedent in light of the disaster at hand. Americans have received a wakeup call; we are not doing enough to regulate potential hazards to our natural food sources, specifically our oceans and forests, and the greater environment we depend on for survival. Though the debate may be delayed until the full nature of the BP oil spill is determined, the fact that this bill has been proposed at this particular time is itself significant. Republicans have a tough pill to swallow if they want to be seen as caring about the impact of our human activities. It will take real cooperation with a President and Democratic Congress who they refuse to give a legislative victory to, no matter how much or how little they may agree on the pressing matter at hand.

As the oil disaster makes it way ashore in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and elsewhere, pressure is sure to mount in favor of passing legislation, aimed at curbing, and eventually ending our dependency on international oil sources. Obviously, it is not in the interest of big oil, or its investors and workers, to be left out of the future energy markets that will inevitably transpire as time passes. The inclusion of provisions aimed to help direct these companies into a more efficient, cleaner, and greener future, will be of the utmost importance with regards to the cooperation of all players in moving forward our national environmental policy. The provisions in this moderate bill go beyond any one spill or the implementation of cap and trade laws. This legislation will once again put America on track to become a worldwide leader in the developing industries of tomorrow, and the energy solutions we must develop, test, and begin to implement today.

Thoughts on the Pros and Cons of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan…

Before the much anticipated confirmation hearings take place, it is useful to consider the pros and cons of President Obama’s second appointment to the Supreme Court, current Solicitor General, and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Elena Kagan. In replacing the iconic Justice Stevens, the appointment of Kagan would set the balance of the court at six men and three women, along with a religious distribution of three Jewish and six Catholic justices. There would no longer be a protestant on the Supreme Court, and the court would arguably no longer have a justice who is firmly liberal in ideology. Given these conditions, here are some of the main arguments that are sure to arise in Elena Kagan’s upcoming questioning.

The Pros…

1.) Solicitor General of the United States
As the “tenth justice,” as the position is often referred to, and the first female Solicitor General in United States history, Kagan’s main office is located in the Supreme Court building, and she has the immense responsibility of arguing the Government’s position on constitutional matters and her office oversees the governments appeals process. This key position assures her vivid understanding of the inner workings of the High Court, and should make one of the primary opposition arguments, that she has never been a judge at any level, weaker in light of her firsthand experience within the institution.

2.) Dean of Harvard Law School/Work as Professor/Education
While at Harvard as a visiting professor, Kagan was an award winning contributor to the Harvard Law Review, writing extensively on the President’s role in administrative and regulatory matters, and in 2003 was selected as the first female Dean of the Harvard Law School. She has served as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and she also worked alongside Barack Obama at University of Chicago Law School, where she became a tenured professor in 1995. She attained her J.D. from Harvard in 1986, and holds an undergraduate degree in History from Princeton and Masters in Philosophy from Oxford University. Nonetheless, her record as a student and an educator is widely viewed as exceptional.

3.) Nomination to the Court of Appeals
In 1999, President Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee under Republican Orrin Hatch failed to schedule her hearing, and her nomination was withdrawn. Then, President Bush appointed soon to be Justice Roberts to the seat. To her supporters, this fact should serve as evidence that she had the confidence by the President to become a judge nearly a decade ago, and the subsequent years and her experience should make her an even better candidate at this point.

4.) White House Counsel
As the Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Kagan was directly involved in the day to day legal activities of the Clinton White House. She served from 1995 to 1999, and her tenure ended gracefully with the previously mentioned nomination to the US Court of Appeals.

The toss up…

5.) Independent Thinker
In his announcement this morning, President Obama referred to Kagan as “one of our nation’s foremost legal minds, an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law.” She is known to be an independent thinker and a consensus builder (code word for centrist). For this reason, many in the center and the Right feel she will be strong intellectual addition to the High Court. This, however, marks the point where we begin to look at potential cons that could hinder her nomination. Some, especially to the left of center, believe that her independence makes her undependable as a liberal vote on the court; therefore, it is likely that her opposition will highlight her unclear record (she supported the Bush Administration’s policy on interrogating terrorists on foreign soil) on matters of executive power and the trial of foreign born terror suspects. She also tried to ban the attendance of military recruiters at the Harvard Law School in a protest of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Cons…

1.) Never a Judge
The first glaring weakness in the minds of some is Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. Though she has worked in the courts, she lacks the paper trail that judges accumulate during their tenures. Therefore, her opponents point to the lack of clarity in her stances on critical positions that most judges would have written on at this point. This point of contention will clearly be raised during her confirmation hearing.

2.) Application of Battlefield Law
As mentioned earlier, Kagan’s opposition from the left is likely to highlight her support of President Bush’ s policy for indefinite detention without a trial for terror suspects caught on foreign soil. This position is viewed as a Right leaning ideology on matters of battlefield law. Those who are weary of Kagan’s reliability as a liberal vote will point to her statements on this matter as proof that she will not replace Justice Steven’s as a voice for the left.

3.) Lack of a Protestant on the Court
Some will argue that the court needs more religious balance, and that the addition of a third Jewish judge skews the court in this department by marking the end of a protestant prescence on the bench. This argument, while factual, is weak in relation to the reasoning behind picking a judge in a country where church and state are separated. Kagan can point to her record as an independent thinker to counter arguments that her religion will seriously impact her decision making.

4.) The Unknown Factor
Because Kagan was not previously a judge, and because her current job calls for her to act in accordance to the requests of the Obama Administration, it is largely unknown exactly where she stands on the political spectrum. If previous nominees are used as a model of comparison, the issue becomes even more complicated due to the fact that many Justices, such as John Roberts, appeared to be centrists but changed their tones once they reached the bench. Will a Justice Kagan stick to the centrist Democratic ideology which she has represented under President Obama, or will she make a move to the left or the right upon reaching the Supreme Court?

Conclusion…

In the end, the unknown factor could make for the most fireworks at Kagan’s confirmation hearing. The fact that she has no paper trail other than cases she has argued on behalf of the government makes it difficult to put a finger on a exactly what kind of Justice she would ultimately become. In my opinion she will most likely become a center left Justice, much in the mold of her predecessor Justice Stevens and the Democratic President she works for. Her calls for more transparency in the Supreme Court confirmation process should place her in a position where she will have to answer the most pressing questions on her ideology in adherence to her own stated standards. Based on the nature of the process, initial reaction, and the large Democratic majority, it is KTT’s feeling that Elena Kagan will become the 112th Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most vulnerable Senate incumbents of the 2010 election cycle…

Last week, we took a look at the most intriguing House races of this election year. Today’s look at most vulnerable Senate incumbents highlights candidates who face unique challenges in retaining their seat, or their party’s nomination. So without delay, KTI presents the reasoning behind the worries of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2010.

#5 - Bob Bennett of Utah (Rep)
In a move that angered Utah conservatives, and especially the boisterous Tea Party, three term Senator Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 has placed this incumbent in a defensive position relative to his supporters. Despite the broadcasted support of Bennett by Mitt Romney, many Republicans, and conservative independents, are weary of Bennett’s true colors. Democrats have used the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the infighting amongst Republicans to launch a fight for this traditionally red seat. Since Utah’s party nominations are done by conventions, which often hinge on important single issues like the Recovery Act, our number five most vulnerable, Senator Bob Bennett, has set himself up for a difficult fight in 2010.

#4 - Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (Dem)
At number four, Lincolns views on environmental and healthcare reforms have her head deep in hot water with liberal voters in Arkansas. In addition, she has a laundry list of competitors for her seat, highlighted by her Democratic Primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who has the all-important monetary backing of the labor unions and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. In defending her seat, Lincoln faces a fierce battle as her vulnerabilities continue to be exploited by her primary opponent. Should she make it out of the first round, she is sure to face a difficult November election challenge.

#3 - Michael Bennet of Colorado (Dem)
As a freshman Senator appointed to the position by Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Bennet faces the difficult task of holding his seat in an anti-incumbent election cycle. He faces a tough primary opponent in former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff, and is defending his vulnerable post, which formerly belonged to now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Though Barack Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote in 2008, the current political climate will make the November election a difficult one for our number three, Bennet, should he survive the May Democratic primary.

#2 - Richard Burr of North Carolina (Rep)
Freshman Senator Richard Burr defends his seat, which has been unkind to incumbents since 1968, in a state where Barack Obama narrowly won with 50% of the vote. As a largely unknown and somewhat unpopular figure, he faces the name identity dilemma, and the bleak history of his seat in an uphill climb to return to the Senate. His Republican primary opponent is Asheboro businessman and City Council Member Eddie Burks. Look for an upset in North Carolina in 2010, as Burr’s precarious position puts him second on our list.

#1 - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (Dem)
Our number one, former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector, is one of the biggest GOP targets of the 2010 election cycle. After a change to his party identification, Spector immediately stamped his name into Republican ire by voting in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His primary opponent, U.S. Representative Joe Sestak, is planting a formidable campaign to steal the Democratic nomination from Spector. Should the Senator survive to face the heat in November, he is likely to encounter former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary. Therefore, despite his tenure, Spector appears to be the most vulnerable incumbent senator in 2010.

Thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act and the numbing down of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision…

Last week, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Al Franken (D-MN) introduced legislation which is aimed at numbing down the potential effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision with regards to corporate personhood and campaign ads. In an earlier KTI article, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s controversial decision is believed by many to be the end for the small guy in the electoral process. Thus giving the largest corporations, foreign interests included, overwhelming influence over election spending in the United States. Also, in allowing corporations to act as individual citizens with regards to their participation in the political process, the Citizens United decision left the door wide open for opponents in Congress to take action in balancing out its effects. The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) is the first proposed, post-Citizens United legislation, which address’s this matter directly. The provisions, endorsed by President Obama in an address last week, are expected to pass through both Houses, with or without bipartisan support.

The DISCLOSE Act, as written, addresses four key areas:

1.) THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL SPENDING
a.) Banning pay to play practices by preventing government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections.
b.) Preventing foreign influence on elections by closing a loophole for spending by domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals. Companies with the following four situations will be prevented from contributing to candidates, Pac’s, and parties:
b1. A foreign national owns 20% or more of voting shares in the corporation
b2. A majority of the board of directors are foreign national’s
b3. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the decision-making of the U.S. subsidiary
b4. One or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate, or control the activities with respect to federal, state or local elections
c.) Preventing organizations from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties. More specifically, for House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate in the time period starting 90 days before the primary and continuing through the general election. For presidential campaigns, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the time period starting 120 days before the first presidential primary and continuing through the general election.
d.) Regulates Party Communications, stating that any payment by a political party committee for the direct costs of an ad or other communication made on behalf of a candidate affiliated with the party will be treated as a contribution to the candidate only if the communication is directed or controlled by the candidate and party-paid communications that are not directed or controlled by the candidate are not subject to limits on the party’s contributions or expenditures.

2.) PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN RELATED ACTIVITY
The legislation ensures that the public will have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures (both electioneering communications and public independent expenditures) made by covered organizations (corporations, unions, section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations and section 527 organizations). The legislation imposes disclosure requirements that will mitigate the ability of spenders to mask their campaign-related activities through the use of intermediaries. It also requires disclosure of both disbursements made by the covered organization and also the source of funds used for those disbursements.

3.) DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
Requires periodic disclosures to shareholders, members, and donors of information on disbursements for campaign-related activity. The covered organization shall post the information described in subparagraph not later than 24 hours after the organization files the information with the Commission under the applicable provision of this Act, and shall ensure that the information remains on the website until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the election with respect to which the public independent expenditures or electioneering communications are made.

4.) TELEVISION MEDIA RATES
Requires media outlets to charge the lowest possible rate for air time and to afford the same rate to all parties seeking advertising spots. This ensures an evening of the electioneering playing field by forcing media outlets to diversify and open their airwaves to less financed candidates. These rates, regulated by the FCC, would apply 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate.

These anticipated, and widely supported adjustments, are a best case reaction to the unpopular Citizen’s United decision that will ultimately serve to improve on the legislative goals of McCain-Feingold. The increased focuses on monetary transparency, and the impending removal of shadowy contributors from the process through CEO and donor testimonials, are widely viewed as positive moves that should be politically popular with most Americans. With regards to protecting the voice of the individual voter, the influence of big money on elections has served to alienate the lower and middle class from the electoral process. Therefore, if implemented correctly, the DISCLOSE Act may be the appropriate legislation to counter to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Senators who drafted this legislation have the important benefit of an electorate that feels trumped by the power of special interests and corporate lobbyists. Coupled with the vociferous support of President Obama, and many progressives in Congress, the lost voices of the individual voter may soon get a much needed boost in volume and importance.

Thoughts on how the GOP's three day financial reform filibuster has achieved absolutely nothing…

Three pointless days of filibustering (stalling) by Senate Republicans have now passed by; highlighted at first by erroneous claims that the reform bill in question was a “bailout”, then by convenient claims that these reforms were written and endorsed by public enemy number one, Goldman Sachs; finally, after realizing that the public was not buying their theatre, Republican leadership gave in and has agreed to debate their Democratic counterparts on the matter. Why the delay? No reason other than pure petty partisan politics. These four preposterous P’s that drive so many voters crazy were used to postpone what should be a bipartisan plan from taking shape. It is in the best interest of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, and the American public to effectively reform Wall Street. Even the biggest players in the industry will agree that unregulated gambling by fat cats helped contribute to the collapse of the American economy in 2008 and 2009. That being said, there was no stopping the typical 4 p’s approach from being taken by Republican leadership and conservative pundits alike.

Despite obvious bipartisan support for this bill, Senator Mitch McConnell could not help himself from projecting the exact opposite image. His false rhetoric contradicted the hard work being done behind the scenes by members of his own party to finalize a bill that would satisfy the demands of all sides. Despite his misguided efforts, most people agree that the need to take the debate to the Senate floor is both obvious and adherent to the Republican Party’s calls for greater transparency from both the Democrats and the President. Ironically, in a stark change from their claims during the healthcare debate, Republicans decided that they would prefer to work behind closed doors as opposed to appearing to work in a bipartisan manner in full view of their supporters. This change of heart is a curious political strategy. Debate on this matter could be beneficial to all parties, as there is a collective discontent towards Wall Street from the American public. Still, these very same Republicans who called for transparency are the very same people now scared to debate on the floor of the Senate.

The claim is that they needed confirmation that there would be no “bailouts” or “too big to fail” allowed in the bill. But they know very well that these matters were addressed in the bill as originally drafted by both Democrats and Republicans in 2009. They simply wanted to make sure that their individual campaign coffers were protected before braving up and debating the matter. The three days of filibustering produced no new reforms, nor did they change anything that could not have been changed through open debate. These are signs of deliberate stalling and unwillingness to compromise in public. Now that the debate has been cleared for the floor, let’s see if the Republican Party can swallow its pride, debate with their counterparts, and recognize that a bipartisan bill is in everybody’s best interest.

Thoughts on Congress moving forward post health care reform

The United States Senate has notoriously been called the institution where great ideas go to die. Currently, there are hundreds of good bills passed by the House of Representatives which have yet to be debated by, or even considered by the Senate. Many of these bills are bi-partisan, and many of the critical issues, such as financial reform and fixes to No Child Left Behind, are being shunned by the minority party in the name of politics. This is unacceptable in our current economic condition.

By refusing to let committees meet, and pulling out every possible parliamentary inquiry known to man, Republicans in the Senate have decided not to be part of the practical solutions to the problems facing the nation. Senator John McCain, a man formerly known for reaching across the aisle despite politics, declared today that any proposed legislation was “dead” because of his party’s bitter feelings over the process of the health care reform debate. This kind of behavior is childish, especially when we are recovering from a nationwide recession.

If this cynical activity is allowed to continue, bills that both sides agree are beneficial will sit and grow dust. Good bills, shunned by a stubborn minority, only to be reintroduced and fall prey to the same viscous cycle. There is serious business before The Senate that must be handled by serious people. We assume that our Senators are those people, that they are reasonable professionals who are elected to work, and not to stall progress.

There is nothing to stop any one Senator from debating their point for or against a bill. Most Americans can respect eloquent argument in the face of tough problems. But, when stall tactics and petty partisan games are used to impede the progress of the nation, it makes an already frustrated American public tune out the political process. In order for the United States to emerge stronger from the past decade, it will be necessary for our leaders to take on the business of the people, not duck from it. Not because of politics, but because the future of our country depends on it.

Thoughts on political incivility in 2010

It’s time for us all to take a deep breath. Our history has shown us that the current path of incivility some have chosen to take will only lead us to repeat our darkest days as a nation. Whether you supported health care reform or not, we can all agree that we collectively want to be defined by the best we have to offer, not the worst. Right, left, or middle politically, no reasonable person can excuse the recent threats of violence made against multiple members of Congress and The President of the United States. This should not be the case in 2010, a time where the perception abroad of the strength of our democracy must not be in question. With two wars still in progress, we must remain strong and united in our purpose to represent what makes America great: our civility and our common ideals.

No matter how deeply rooted your opposition to any one particular policy; there is nothing in our character as a nation that allows for such hateful actions. No elected official who voted for the Health care Reform Bill deserves to have their families targeted, nor should people take to arms and fire at a Republican representative’s campaign office. Have we not learned these lessons from tragic events such as the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1993, the Civil War, and the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln? Now is the time for us to unite despite our differences, take a moment to realize we are all Americans despite our political opinions, and put an end to this violent nonsense.

When we allow our own selfish reasoning to outweigh common sense civility, we endanger the very core of our values as Americans. Violence against our neighbors, agree with them or not, is not something we can afford to tolerate. It’s our duty to let those who are distraught know that they need only vote to express their disdain for public policy. Our leaders need to come together on a bi-partisan basis and show Americans that they are united under one flag, one constitution, and a lasting creed to remain civil in the midst of tough argument and debate.

As we deploy our troops to foreign nations, it is imperative that we set a good example for those whom we are trying to help achieve a free democracy. We need to respect one another’s opinions, and if we should disagree, act like we’ve been there before, and put hatred to the side. Our country cannot afford to become more divided. Unless we can return to an era of respect towards our political leaders, and most importantly, one another, the ideal of America as a civil democracy will quickly fall into jeopardy. Today is the best time to end the hate, the animosity, the incitement, the cynicism, and to allow the best of us to come forward. I hope we can all agree that coming together in condoning the past weeks actions of a radical few is in the best interest of all Americans.

Thoughts on Deaths Related to Lack of Health Insurance in the US

Today, while doing my research for this article, I stumbled upon an old USA Today article from May of 2002. In the article, it had been determined by researchers that 18,000 people in the United States had died from a lack of health insurance in 2001. The article also mentioned that approximately 30 million people lacked health insurance at the time, a number relatively equal to the amount of people who will be covered under the Senate’s health care bill. These numbers, while staggering, pale in comparison to the numbers researchers found in 2009.

In a CNN article from September of 2009, It was determined that over 45,000 Americans died in 2008 because they did not have health care insurance, a number we can only sadly predict as having risen since. This, with approximately 45 million Americans off of the Health Insurance rolls. At the same time, health insurance CEO’s raked in massive salaries, while denying coverage to many of these people who are no longer with us. 15 Million People joined the ranks of the uninsured, and a staggering increase of deaths amongst this group makes this the biggest homeland threat we have ever faced.

We have spent nearly 750 billion dollars on the War in Iraq, but nothing has been done to respond to the thousands of deaths occurring right under our noses. Using basic math, passing the current bill would save approximately 30,000 lives over the course of a year, just by providing basic health care services to the sick and needy. The short term costs of a trillion dollars over 10 years, while tough to swallow, are nothing compared to the costs to families across the country. If the current system remains in place, we are effectively allowing people to die on our watch. It’s really that simple. No matter what the partisan debate of the moment may be, we must all agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

In the end, the bill will not make anybody 100% happy. But, if we can save that many lives per year, and potentially pay down the costs over the next decade, then why not use the Senate Bill as a starting point, a base from which adjustments can be made over time? If we can save the lives of our fellow Americans by passing this historic reform package, then it would seem passing the bill now would be in the best interest of everyone but the insurance companies.

This week should see resolution of a yearlong debate over the current process and the product created by both houses. Will everyone be happy? No, but if we all do some soul searching, and think about those less fortunate, maybe we can all agree that saving the lives of our fellow citizens, and making health care a right, not a privilege, will be in the long term best interest of our economy, our communities, and our country.