My Simple Little Proposal: Part 2

Republicans continue to be criticized for not acting in good faith when it comes to the healthcare debate. More specifically, in Obama's speech to Congress last night he argued that opponents of a public option were guilty of cultivating a culture of fear based on what he termed "lies." Apparently, no one has informed Obama that you can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. The tone of the address seemed to do little more than to heighten passions on both sides of the debate.

Rewind with me for one second. In April 2009, actress turned commentator Janeane Garofalo argued that Tea Party protesters were historically ignorant claiming that conservatives' real opposition to the national healthcare option was more about the race of the person proposing the healthcare option than the legislation itself. She claimed that conservatives knew nothing about the original Tea Party. In her own words: "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Rewind with me one more time for just a second. Let's prove Janeane Garofalo wrong and put the original Tea Party in its original context and see if she is right or not. In order to encourage settlement among the colonies, sweetheart deals were offered to companies and individuals who were willing to take the physical risks associated with colonial settlement. Remember that in the 17th century, colonial settlement was a very dangerous proposition. Oftentimes, people did not survive the journey, let alone life after arrival. As an incentive for taking this risk, land was offered very cheaply, often tax-free. This was a very attractive incentive because even if it did not secure an easy life for the original settlers it offered the hope of a prosperous life for their posterity.

One century later, England found itself embroiled in the colonial conflict called the French and Indian War. In return for defending colonists, King George felt it appropriate that the columnist should share the burden for the cost of their defense. This led to a series of taxes being passed by Parliament, the most famous being a tax on overseas tea. What angered the colonists most was not the taxes themselves, as much as the lack of political representation in Parliament to ensure the fair representation of the colinists' interests. This anger was encapsulated in the now famous saying: "no taxation without representation." Only when it became apparent that the English government had no interest in making sure the colonists interests were fairly represented in Parliament did a more intense discontent and anger with the English government begin to ensue. In truth, there was even wide disagreement among the colonists about whether such expressions of revolt where appropriate methods of conflict resolution.

Returning to our modern situation, critics of conservatives argue that unlike the participants of the ancient Tea Party, modern "Tea Party" participants and others discontented with the proposed government healthcare option are appropriately represented in Congress. Therefore, critics argue, the Modern Tea Party Movement has no parallel to the original "Tea Party." I disagree, especially when it comes to the issue of healthcare.

How can pro-government-option proponents argue with a straight face that any of us are being fairly represented on this issue when the people seeking to pass the legislation will not be forced to live under the same laws they will expect the rest of us to live under. As I argued in my previous post, if Democrats are really serious about getting past what they claim to be "lies and distortions", they need do only one thing: make any law they pass applicable to all federal officials as well. This simple move will ensure that any bill that ultimately results will be good enough for Congress, and therefore likely good enough for the rest of us.

Even though I am inherently opposed to another government program, I make this pledge to one and all. I will vigorously support any bill that passes as long as Congress is willing to live under the same bill without any additional perks. This will radically change the tone of the debate. Furthermore, it will ensure the greatest amount of goodwill from congressional voters since voters will realize their representatives actually have skin in the game. If people have fear about what is going to be passed, it is with good reason. No current government official is going to be forced to live under any of the proposals that are being offered. If the federal government is not forced to live under the same system, how can they truly be said to represent us? This is exactly why I argue that the current situation is much closer to the original tea party than opponents are ready to acknowledge. We have no true representation from either party on this issue. Once again, if Congress is really concerned about healthcare, lead us to where YOU are willing to go, and we will follow!

My Simple Little Proposal

As of this note, the president is getting ready to try once again to argue for some form of a health care proposal. Democrats have repeatedly argued that Republicans have "no ideas." I challenge that assessment. Simply because don't like like Republican ideas doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are inherently bad or untenable. Nonetheless, I digress. Instead of trying to once again present the litany of proposals that have been offered by conservatives, I offer this very simple alternative: I will accept without question any healthcare bill that all branches of government are willing to accept for themselves without exception. I will accept any proposal the government is willing to accept for itself. after all, any official who truly represents you and me should live a life like the one we live. Last time I checked, this government is still a Republic and not a monarchy or egalitarian form of government. Who is with me on this?