Is the Tea Party Causing Some GOP Members to Waffle on Key Issues?
Case in point; when then President Bill Clinton first sought universal health care in 1993, one of the major counterproposals by conservatives was for an individual mandate in lieu of the employer based mandates then favored by Democrats.
Yes, you read correctly, the same individual mandate that conservatives two years ago argued—and still argue—is a usurpation of free market principles. And to keep the political flip-flopping consistent, President Obama, when running for office in 2008, opposed the individual mandate and flipped to supporting it when t became obvious that a single payer system was the Holy Grail for the liberal wing of his party.
Which brings me to my current issue, that the dramatic events unfolding in Wisconsin, where thousands are protesting Governor Scott Walker’s proposed budget and the looming legislative battle in Florida, where the Tea Party may soon have to determine how aligned they will remain with a Republican legislature that is unlikely to provide the cuts in government espoused by its darling new Governor Rick Scott, will provide further clarity on the decades long battle on less vs. more government.
Truth be told, both sides have meritorious arguments. As we remain mired in Recession, it is only logical that government belt-tightening must ensue. And yet, many Democrats argue that deep tax cuts—particularly in Florida where tourism and agriculture both have suffered and failed to adequately fill the state’s coiffeurs will—lead to a deficit.
When considering this issue it is important to note that political expediency trumps sound judgment, and in some instances, it trumps ideological consistency.
In Florida, the first few weeks of Rick Scott’s governorship has been a feast for the anti-government crowd and an ideological famine for those concerned that jobs, social programs and education will suffer under his watch—facts that are causing considerable angst among rank-and-file employees.
Scott’s “no holds barred” approach has endeared the former health insurance executive to right-wing bloggers and pundits, many of whom now suggest that he is the perfect presidential candidate based upon his penny pinching penchant, a trait they argue makes him prime to unseat President Obama in ’12.
While some Republicans remain skeptical, as Scott’s appearances on cable news and talk radio increases, his penchant for taking a scythe instead of a scalpel to the budget is sure to propel him to the front of an otherwise uninspiring group of GOP presidential hopefuls.
On a recent show, radio host Glenn Beck recounted meeting Scott, observing that one of his (Scott) best attributes is that he means what he says.
Does he, really?
Scott, like most Republicans, opposes the Affordable Health Care Act in large measure because of the individual mandate that would force Americans to enroll in a health care plan. Scott was so zealous in his disapproval that almost immediately after a Pensacola Federal Judge ruled the Act unconstitutional last month, he declared that the state would seek to prevent it from being implemented as the measure “was a significant job killer.”
Scott’s position, perhaps, was better stated earlier by Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who deigned “Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it…the difference between regulating and requiring is liberty.”
Well, such makes for great partisan rhetoric, but is it consistent?
No! Barely two weeks after frowning upon the individual mandates’ attack on “liberty”, Scott unveiled a plan that would force or “mandate” that state workers contribute up to five percent of their salaries for their retirement.
How is this dissimilar from “mandating” that individuals buy insurance?
Theoretically, it is not dissimilar at all.
But such is the nature of the modern political game where the candidate who states a position the loudest and most often has a great chance of impressing voters, many of whom through apathy or diminished discernment cannot distinguish fact from fiction.
In addition to spending a substantial portion of his descendants inheritance in last year’s gubernatorial race, Scott, if nothing else, has proved to be dogmatic in his devotion to long held conservative beliefs of less government spending. With commercial ads filled with right wing platitudes, Scott was even able to convince voters in rural counties, many of whom depend upon the local state prison for sustenance, to vote for him despite not hiding the fact that he intended to drastically reduce government spending—including prisons.
Remarkable!
Fortunately, Florida’s Republican dominated legislature, many of whom did not support Scott in the primary, in tandem with minority Democrats is likely to remind the governor early and often that while his goals of reinventing government makes for great sound-bytes, that with the State facing a potential budget shortfall of 4.6 billion dollars, that the wisest move may not be to cut taxes as deeply as Scott would but for that little thing called the Constitution and its separation of powers.
