I don't want to make predictions. After all, if I'm wrong, there it is with my name and the date of my wrongness. Not that so many people are reading, but I confess, I read it, and it would bother me to read a wrong prediction.
So, instead of making a prediction, I will "run a scenario". That way, if I'm wrong, I won't have made a wrong prediction. If my scenario runs true, I won't say I made a correct prediction, but I will know I did.
Here goes......
A health care reform bill will NOT be passed.
It will be the first humbling defeat for President Obama. He will handle it with dignity.
As a result of this defeat, despite his valiant efforts to DO SOMETHING, his stature and credibility will rise.
He will then undertake the next big social issue of our day.....IMMIGRATION.
As emotional as immigration reform is, it is much simpler than health care reform.
It has the potential for bi-partisanship, negotiation, and results that are predicable, measurable, and understandable.
Congress will pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010, and President Obama will sign it.
Right leaning Republicans will rail against this new law, and make it the cornerstone of their effort to take back the White House.
President Obama will be re-elected in a landslide, largely because of his handling of immigration reform in the aftermath of his defeat on health care reform.
Many will speculate as to why Obama chose to tackle health care before immigration. Ultimately this decision, whether by design or not, will be credited as one of the most brilliant moves in American political history.
If this all turns out to be wrong....hey, it was just a scenario.
Somehow, though, I do think this is how it's going to play out.
Your scenarios are welcome.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
If The Analogy Fits.....
The people who are most vocal about the need for universal health insurance are those who don't have it. Generally they say they don't have it because they "can't afford it". Lots of people buy things they can't afford, and opt not to buy other things they probably could, but bottom line, it's a DECISION. I'm not saying it's an easy decision, but like many financial decisions, it involves allocating your resources and making judgments.
I recently heard a radio talk show caller say she worked two nursing jobs, made pretty good money, but did not have health insurance because it cost $500 a month. She was imploring the President and Congress to "do something". I wanted to say (well actually, I DID say....to myself, while driving) "Uh, you do know that President Obama is talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, right?" This little tidbit is often lost in the discussion, or tossed in with phrases like "if you can't afford it, we'll help you".
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise. Breathe easy, you're gonna get health insurance, but YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.....BY LAW!!!!
Can the government do that? Make you pay for something that has always been optional?
The closest analogy is motorcycle helmet laws. If you live in a State that has mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, it seems like a no-brainer (ouch, bad play on words). Everyone accepts it, you kind of understand that the government is making a law requiring people to protect themselves, and also not make us all responsible for their stupidity. If you live in a mandatory motorcycle helmet law State, you may not realize that such laws are NOT universal. Check out this map http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm I love the comment on the bottom "When I Ride I Decide... Not the State or the Safety Nannies". Yes, there are people who think this way. People who believe in an individuals right to decide things for themselves. This is very often a Republican trait, and the little map looks like Bush v Kerry or Bush v Gore.
Now we have some irony. The Federal government is going to tell a lot of people they must carry health insurance. And they must pay for it, month after month. I think in other contexts this is called "a TAX". Most middle class people, most Democrats, are fine with taxes on "corporations" and "rich people", but taxes on themselves are harder to swallow. I can't wait for them to start asserting their right to make their own decisions about health insurance.
I know that a logical response to this will be...."Well, if people can't afford it, and the government helps out, then it will end up with employers paying, which is also a tax....the pernicious sort of tax that cripples businesses and job creation". I don't think this can be pawned off on small businesses, the stretched backbone of our economy. I don't think so because businesses make decisions too, and if this becomes the playing field, if it becomes OUR TAX....we're not hiring.
What about the "public option"? I think when most people hear this, they assume this is "the free public coverage that I can opt for". I don't think so. I think it would be something affordable.....that you will be REQUIRED to pay for. Still like it? Getting DMV-like service and having to pay for it? It may end up being a big boon to private health insurers because once people accept having to pay, they will probably splurge for the better service of private insurance.
All this health insurance stuff is all about getting more paying customers. That's always what insurance is about. All the low risk people (ie - young and healthy people) are making a decision to stay out of the system. Now the government is going to make their decision, you are IN because we all need you in....to spread the risk around and make it affordable for everyone.
Damn it, we need more customers. And that is the 800 pound gorilla my friends, the 15 million hard working participants in our economy who do not have legal status, and desperately want it. The ones who are going to ultimately get legalized, and can then participate in our mandatory, you pay for it, health insurance system. They can all make a decision, stay and pay, or leave. They'll stay, and this is what will ultimately make the entire system work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are surely onto this.
You can write it down.
I recently heard a radio talk show caller say she worked two nursing jobs, made pretty good money, but did not have health insurance because it cost $500 a month. She was imploring the President and Congress to "do something". I wanted to say (well actually, I DID say....to myself, while driving) "Uh, you do know that President Obama is talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, right?" This little tidbit is often lost in the discussion, or tossed in with phrases like "if you can't afford it, we'll help you".
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise. Breathe easy, you're gonna get health insurance, but YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.....BY LAW!!!!
Can the government do that? Make you pay for something that has always been optional?
The closest analogy is motorcycle helmet laws. If you live in a State that has mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, it seems like a no-brainer (ouch, bad play on words). Everyone accepts it, you kind of understand that the government is making a law requiring people to protect themselves, and also not make us all responsible for their stupidity. If you live in a mandatory motorcycle helmet law State, you may not realize that such laws are NOT universal. Check out this map http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm I love the comment on the bottom "When I Ride I Decide... Not the State or the Safety Nannies". Yes, there are people who think this way. People who believe in an individuals right to decide things for themselves. This is very often a Republican trait, and the little map looks like Bush v Kerry or Bush v Gore.
Now we have some irony. The Federal government is going to tell a lot of people they must carry health insurance. And they must pay for it, month after month. I think in other contexts this is called "a TAX". Most middle class people, most Democrats, are fine with taxes on "corporations" and "rich people", but taxes on themselves are harder to swallow. I can't wait for them to start asserting their right to make their own decisions about health insurance.
I know that a logical response to this will be...."Well, if people can't afford it, and the government helps out, then it will end up with employers paying, which is also a tax....the pernicious sort of tax that cripples businesses and job creation". I don't think this can be pawned off on small businesses, the stretched backbone of our economy. I don't think so because businesses make decisions too, and if this becomes the playing field, if it becomes OUR TAX....we're not hiring.
What about the "public option"? I think when most people hear this, they assume this is "the free public coverage that I can opt for". I don't think so. I think it would be something affordable.....that you will be REQUIRED to pay for. Still like it? Getting DMV-like service and having to pay for it? It may end up being a big boon to private health insurers because once people accept having to pay, they will probably splurge for the better service of private insurance.
All this health insurance stuff is all about getting more paying customers. That's always what insurance is about. All the low risk people (ie - young and healthy people) are making a decision to stay out of the system. Now the government is going to make their decision, you are IN because we all need you in....to spread the risk around and make it affordable for everyone.
Damn it, we need more customers. And that is the 800 pound gorilla my friends, the 15 million hard working participants in our economy who do not have legal status, and desperately want it. The ones who are going to ultimately get legalized, and can then participate in our mandatory, you pay for it, health insurance system. They can all make a decision, stay and pay, or leave. They'll stay, and this is what will ultimately make the entire system work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are surely onto this.
You can write it down.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Immigration Issues in the General Election
I love writing about the Presidential election. Everybody's talking about it, everybody's analyzing. I haven't got much to add to all the blah blah blah. I'll just summarize, so I can jump ahead and talk about immigration.
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
Monday, January 14, 2008
Reconsidering McCain
I hate when this happens. Yesterday I started a post about John McCain, but then I did some Democratic "backstory" and tabled McCain until today. Of course, all the buzz in the national media today was about McCain. Well, I WAS gonna break the story first, and here's my take on it.....
We all have our little cliched ideas about John McCain. The patriotic POW/hero who is a "loose canon". He even looks kinda whacked out sometimes. Here's page one of his own website http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/?sid=gorganic Yipes!!!!
Another thing he is known for is being "not your typical Republican". This alone warrants a second look. Here is the "issues" page from his website http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
If you looked it over, you may feel like I do.....I don't agree with all of it. Do you need a candidate who agrees with you on everything? Do you want a candidate whose moves you can predict based on an ideology? I have my own little cliche....I like someone who "will stand up for what he thinks is right".
OK.......maybe I've become a one issue guy, that issue being Immigration. I have posted about this a few times. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration Congress, and all the candidates (Republican & Democrat), acted disgracefully. Except John McCain. What did they do that got my goat?
1. The Country had a serious problem that should have been addressed with a comprehensive law.
2. The issues are complicated, and the only way to solve them was with fair compromise, non-partisanship, and creativity.
3. A bill was proposed that had plenty of meat on it, and addressed ALL the issues.
4. The Republicans railed against the bill as an "amnesty" bill. However, they never addressed what to do about the 12 million people here without legal status, most of whom contribute to our economy, want to be a legal part of our society, and want to pay their fair share of taxes. They did their work so in-artfully that the bill was never seriously debated, and the Democrats never even had to state their positions on it. Actually, virtually no Democrats stated their position, and the fact is, if they had, most would have opposed the bill for being too strict.
5. Seems to me that a bill which is tough for both sides to swallow is probably a good compromise, and had the details been allowed to be worked out, OUR COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF.
That defeated bill was the Kennedy-McCain bill. Here's a rundown from the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/112653/285 Doesn't look like an amnesty bill to me!!
In the early Republican debates, the candidates spewed their anti-amnesty rhetoric. McCain stood alone and essentially took it. Not the place to actually TALK about it. It would have been easy for McCain to stay out of the immigration fray, as ALL the other candidates did. Surely he realized that politically it could hurt him......I mean, he sponsored the bill with Ted Kennedy!! He took a novel and unprecedented path. Political considerations came second. Patriotism and the desire to help our country came first.
In my view, that is why many people are reconsidering McCain.....rightly so.
We all have our little cliched ideas about John McCain. The patriotic POW/hero who is a "loose canon". He even looks kinda whacked out sometimes. Here's page one of his own website http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/?sid=gorganic Yipes!!!!
Another thing he is known for is being "not your typical Republican". This alone warrants a second look. Here is the "issues" page from his website http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
If you looked it over, you may feel like I do.....I don't agree with all of it. Do you need a candidate who agrees with you on everything? Do you want a candidate whose moves you can predict based on an ideology? I have my own little cliche....I like someone who "will stand up for what he thinks is right".
OK.......maybe I've become a one issue guy, that issue being Immigration. I have posted about this a few times. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration Congress, and all the candidates (Republican & Democrat), acted disgracefully. Except John McCain. What did they do that got my goat?
1. The Country had a serious problem that should have been addressed with a comprehensive law.
2. The issues are complicated, and the only way to solve them was with fair compromise, non-partisanship, and creativity.
3. A bill was proposed that had plenty of meat on it, and addressed ALL the issues.
4. The Republicans railed against the bill as an "amnesty" bill. However, they never addressed what to do about the 12 million people here without legal status, most of whom contribute to our economy, want to be a legal part of our society, and want to pay their fair share of taxes. They did their work so in-artfully that the bill was never seriously debated, and the Democrats never even had to state their positions on it. Actually, virtually no Democrats stated their position, and the fact is, if they had, most would have opposed the bill for being too strict.
5. Seems to me that a bill which is tough for both sides to swallow is probably a good compromise, and had the details been allowed to be worked out, OUR COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF.
That defeated bill was the Kennedy-McCain bill. Here's a rundown from the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/112653/285 Doesn't look like an amnesty bill to me!!
In the early Republican debates, the candidates spewed their anti-amnesty rhetoric. McCain stood alone and essentially took it. Not the place to actually TALK about it. It would have been easy for McCain to stay out of the immigration fray, as ALL the other candidates did. Surely he realized that politically it could hurt him......I mean, he sponsored the bill with Ted Kennedy!! He took a novel and unprecedented path. Political considerations came second. Patriotism and the desire to help our country came first.
In my view, that is why many people are reconsidering McCain.....rightly so.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Over the Barrel - - Time for RESULTS
Sometimes inspiration comes from strange places. I've been real sick the last few days. I'd call it "flu-like" symptoms. The next time a pro athlete sits out with "flu-like" symptoms, I will not question it. I watched a lot of TV at all hours of the day and night. Thankfully, the Christmas season inspires some networks to show "Goodfellas", #11 on my all time list http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Favorite%20Movies%20List
There is a part where Henry Hill has hit bottom, and he knows he's going to get whacked, and the ONLY thing he can do is make a deal with the Feds and go in the witness protection program. As abhorrent as this was on every level (giving up the life AND being a rat), he makes the deal and lives up to it's onerous terms. The result is all his cronies are convicted and he gets to survive.
I started thinking about how when you have someone over the barrel, THAT is the time to make a good deal. In my previous post I proposed that baseball do this in the steroids situation. Then I caught some inspiration. There is another situation where making a deal when people are over a barrel could and should be used.....and I've blogged about this before.....IMMIGRATION.
Here are some similarities between steroids in baseball and immigration:
1. The conduct in question was technically illegal, but most people do not view the participants as "criminals".
2. The participants did what they did for the economic benefits to themselves and their families.
3. Congress is "interested" in the problem, and did some talking, but has taken no real action.
4. The participants want to keep participating, and they want to participate "legally".
5. Some participants may not be able to participate "legally", and most people would agree this is just too bad (This one is more obscure, so in baseball if you can't compete without the juice, go sell cars, and in immigration if you are a felon, sorry but we have enough of our own)
6. SOMETHING needs to be done.
I'm not sure if the ballplayers are Henry Hill status yet, but if the beat goes on they may get there. Immigration was way closer to ripeness for a strong deal. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration (for best effect, read the posts bottom up). The proposal which the Republicans killed earlier this year was a VERY strong bill, which no Democrats would have actually voted for, had the Republicans been astute enough to bring it to a vote. This issue will not go away, but it will not be addressed by Congress again until 2009, in a new administration. If Congress and the next President put partisanship aside, and actually look out for the Country as a whole, they'll cut a strong deal. It will have conditional amnesty, strong conditions and teeth.
Now go home and get your shinebox. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5S-H4uE0y0
Bonus link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4VxewepbYk&feature=related scene where Joe Pesci shoots Spider (played by Michael Imperioli from the Sopranos)
There is a part where Henry Hill has hit bottom, and he knows he's going to get whacked, and the ONLY thing he can do is make a deal with the Feds and go in the witness protection program. As abhorrent as this was on every level (giving up the life AND being a rat), he makes the deal and lives up to it's onerous terms. The result is all his cronies are convicted and he gets to survive.
I started thinking about how when you have someone over the barrel, THAT is the time to make a good deal. In my previous post I proposed that baseball do this in the steroids situation. Then I caught some inspiration. There is another situation where making a deal when people are over a barrel could and should be used.....and I've blogged about this before.....IMMIGRATION.
Here are some similarities between steroids in baseball and immigration:
1. The conduct in question was technically illegal, but most people do not view the participants as "criminals".
2. The participants did what they did for the economic benefits to themselves and their families.
3. Congress is "interested" in the problem, and did some talking, but has taken no real action.
4. The participants want to keep participating, and they want to participate "legally".
5. Some participants may not be able to participate "legally", and most people would agree this is just too bad (This one is more obscure, so in baseball if you can't compete without the juice, go sell cars, and in immigration if you are a felon, sorry but we have enough of our own)
6. SOMETHING needs to be done.
I'm not sure if the ballplayers are Henry Hill status yet, but if the beat goes on they may get there. Immigration was way closer to ripeness for a strong deal. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration (for best effect, read the posts bottom up). The proposal which the Republicans killed earlier this year was a VERY strong bill, which no Democrats would have actually voted for, had the Republicans been astute enough to bring it to a vote. This issue will not go away, but it will not be addressed by Congress again until 2009, in a new administration. If Congress and the next President put partisanship aside, and actually look out for the Country as a whole, they'll cut a strong deal. It will have conditional amnesty, strong conditions and teeth.
Now go home and get your shinebox. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5S-H4uE0y0
Bonus link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4VxewepbYk&feature=related scene where Joe Pesci shoots Spider (played by Michael Imperioli from the Sopranos)
Monday, June 11, 2007
DOH! Immigration Bill Going Nowhere
President Bush really looked like Homer Simpson (or any other doofus paradigm you prefer) on this one. My faithful blog readers know that I nailed this situation.....I should only pick horses this well.
You have to give the Democrats credit, they lured Bush into a "compromise" that NONE of them would have actually voted for, and waited for his cretinous cronies to rail against it and "defeat" the bill before it went anywhere. It does not appear that the issues will actually be publicly debated. That seems like a constructive way to handle the most important social issue in our country.
What could Bush and the remaining upright-walking Rebublicans have done. Consider this scenario.....they all supported the bill despite stating certain reservations about it, but express a willingness to compromise further and work out any differences in the best interests of the country. They further trumpet their support of those things that would have forced the Democrats to actually talk about the bill (provisions regarding returning home, fines, waiting, elimination of certain family preferences, and English language encouragement). How many Democrats would have actually supported or voted for a bill with all those provisions? How different would this all look if the Democrats would have been the ones who "defeated" the bill, or at least contributed to the defeat.
The way this played out shows an appalling lack of political skill from the White House. It could also be that nobody in Congress, especially the Republicans, can gain anything from an association with the President. Bush is so far down that his best political ally is now Ted Kennedy.
DOH!!!!!!!
You have to give the Democrats credit, they lured Bush into a "compromise" that NONE of them would have actually voted for, and waited for his cretinous cronies to rail against it and "defeat" the bill before it went anywhere. It does not appear that the issues will actually be publicly debated. That seems like a constructive way to handle the most important social issue in our country.
What could Bush and the remaining upright-walking Rebublicans have done. Consider this scenario.....they all supported the bill despite stating certain reservations about it, but express a willingness to compromise further and work out any differences in the best interests of the country. They further trumpet their support of those things that would have forced the Democrats to actually talk about the bill (provisions regarding returning home, fines, waiting, elimination of certain family preferences, and English language encouragement). How many Democrats would have actually supported or voted for a bill with all those provisions? How different would this all look if the Democrats would have been the ones who "defeated" the bill, or at least contributed to the defeat.
The way this played out shows an appalling lack of political skill from the White House. It could also be that nobody in Congress, especially the Republicans, can gain anything from an association with the President. Bush is so far down that his best political ally is now Ted Kennedy.
DOH!!!!!!!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Immigration Bill......I'm on the right track
Here's a link to a fascinating op-ed piece from today's Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010155
It's based on interviews with President Bush regarding the immigration bill. I realize that some of my "liberal" readers will have difficulty reading anything emanating from "that man". I would say this.....the column is impressive, and explains many of the difficulties inherent in reaching a consensus for immigration reform.
In past posts, I have stated my basic position: President Bush wants and needs to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and the Democrats will never let this happen until 2009. Furthermore, the present bill is all about changing the nature of the future debate, embarrassing the right wingers, and keeping the democratic Presidential candidates (primarily Hillary and Edwards) out of the fray.
There was one section of the article that really let me know I'm on the right track. Please read the whole piece for context, but here is the section that really caught my attention:
"When I ask if Mr. Bush thinks any of the current GOP candidates are proving to be leaders on immigration, he again flips the issue around (while still managing to sneak in one candidate's name): "I would rather refer you to those in the Senate that are doing a standup job. Of course, that would be Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham and [Mel] Martinez--I hate to name them because I'll leave somebody out--John McCain has been very strong in the Senate, Ted Kennedy." He goes on to praise Mr. Kennedy, noting that an "untold" story is just how many Democrats are against this bill, and that Mr. Kennedy's leadership will thus be necessary to get a bill through the Senate. "
Yes, that is the "untold" story, because this bill is way too stringent for most Democrats, and there will not be any "leadership" from Senator Kennedy to get it throught the Senate. Neither Senator Kennedy nor any other Democrats have any intention of passing this bill, and that is the REAL story.
It's based on interviews with President Bush regarding the immigration bill. I realize that some of my "liberal" readers will have difficulty reading anything emanating from "that man". I would say this.....the column is impressive, and explains many of the difficulties inherent in reaching a consensus for immigration reform.
In past posts, I have stated my basic position: President Bush wants and needs to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and the Democrats will never let this happen until 2009. Furthermore, the present bill is all about changing the nature of the future debate, embarrassing the right wingers, and keeping the democratic Presidential candidates (primarily Hillary and Edwards) out of the fray.
There was one section of the article that really let me know I'm on the right track. Please read the whole piece for context, but here is the section that really caught my attention:
"When I ask if Mr. Bush thinks any of the current GOP candidates are proving to be leaders on immigration, he again flips the issue around (while still managing to sneak in one candidate's name): "I would rather refer you to those in the Senate that are doing a standup job. Of course, that would be Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham and [Mel] Martinez--I hate to name them because I'll leave somebody out--John McCain has been very strong in the Senate, Ted Kennedy." He goes on to praise Mr. Kennedy, noting that an "untold" story is just how many Democrats are against this bill, and that Mr. Kennedy's leadership will thus be necessary to get a bill through the Senate. "
Yes, that is the "untold" story, because this bill is way too stringent for most Democrats, and there will not be any "leadership" from Senator Kennedy to get it throught the Senate. Neither Senator Kennedy nor any other Democrats have any intention of passing this bill, and that is the REAL story.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Immigration (What's Going on Here?)
It was gratifying that Congress responded so rapidly to my previous immigration post. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration
The theme was that the Democrats would never allow an immigation bill to be passed while Bush was President, and despite the pressing need, it will not happen until 2009, when a Democrat is President.
Within 48 hours of my post, the story of the big "compromise bill" hit the papers. Could I have been wrong? Are the various players in Congress working together in a bi-partisan manner for the good of the country? I would like to think so, but something smells funny about this bill (fish or rats, maybe both). Here are a few thoughts on this bill, and the ongoing debates:
1. It's curious that the Democrat at the forefront of the bill is Ted Kennedy, probably the only Democrat who never has to worry about being re-elected. He can afford to act bi-partisan, and also inject/infect the debate with all kinds of issues that would be unpalatable to most Senators and Congressmen.
(An aside -- I don't think this "compromise bill" has anything to do with actually passing a law, it's all about framing the debate for the law they are going to eventually pass. The one that's going to be signed by President Hillary or President Edwards. So now we are hearing some debate about the importance of re-uniting immigrant families, in the context of the immigration laws. Of course, most of us knew this was an issue in immigration policy, but not a FOCAL issue. The present debate is designed to get us all ready for this, when the real law is debated and passed)
2. President Bush is desparate to do SOMETHING good and memorable, so he has to support the compromise bill. There are some things in there for him. Some border security, some fines, some onerous "return home and wait" provisions, some English language preferences. Unfortunately for him, his right wing support base will not go for this bill, and will enter the debate in a shrill and partisan manner. This will further splinter an already divided Republican party. In their effort to frame the debate about what the immigration law SHOULD focus on (the security of out country and the best long term interests of the economy and our society), the Republicans will be cast as partisan racists.
3. In a normal world, when you are trying to reach a compromise in a complex conflict, it can be encouraging when "everyone is unhappy about the proposal". That seems to be the case here, but does anyone think this will lead to further workable compromise and a law?
4. None of the Presidential hopefuls on either side is saying much about this bill. I don't blame them. As Jackie Mason might say "It's not really any of my business". I suspect they know what this thing is really about, and they are going to sit this one out, until it's THEIR time.
Here's a fun thing to think about.....what would you rather have......a law that took all the decent ideas in the present bill, and worked through them in a true bi-partisan fashion in the best interests of our country, ending up with a law that may leave a few groups wishing for more, but really was designed to right the course of this unworkable mess....OR....
The law that will be passed in 2009 by a Democrat Congress and Democrat president?
OK.....it's not that funny....
The theme was that the Democrats would never allow an immigation bill to be passed while Bush was President, and despite the pressing need, it will not happen until 2009, when a Democrat is President.
Within 48 hours of my post, the story of the big "compromise bill" hit the papers. Could I have been wrong? Are the various players in Congress working together in a bi-partisan manner for the good of the country? I would like to think so, but something smells funny about this bill (fish or rats, maybe both). Here are a few thoughts on this bill, and the ongoing debates:
1. It's curious that the Democrat at the forefront of the bill is Ted Kennedy, probably the only Democrat who never has to worry about being re-elected. He can afford to act bi-partisan, and also inject/infect the debate with all kinds of issues that would be unpalatable to most Senators and Congressmen.
(An aside -- I don't think this "compromise bill" has anything to do with actually passing a law, it's all about framing the debate for the law they are going to eventually pass. The one that's going to be signed by President Hillary or President Edwards. So now we are hearing some debate about the importance of re-uniting immigrant families, in the context of the immigration laws. Of course, most of us knew this was an issue in immigration policy, but not a FOCAL issue. The present debate is designed to get us all ready for this, when the real law is debated and passed)
2. President Bush is desparate to do SOMETHING good and memorable, so he has to support the compromise bill. There are some things in there for him. Some border security, some fines, some onerous "return home and wait" provisions, some English language preferences. Unfortunately for him, his right wing support base will not go for this bill, and will enter the debate in a shrill and partisan manner. This will further splinter an already divided Republican party. In their effort to frame the debate about what the immigration law SHOULD focus on (the security of out country and the best long term interests of the economy and our society), the Republicans will be cast as partisan racists.
3. In a normal world, when you are trying to reach a compromise in a complex conflict, it can be encouraging when "everyone is unhappy about the proposal". That seems to be the case here, but does anyone think this will lead to further workable compromise and a law?
4. None of the Presidential hopefuls on either side is saying much about this bill. I don't blame them. As Jackie Mason might say "It's not really any of my business". I suspect they know what this thing is really about, and they are going to sit this one out, until it's THEIR time.
Here's a fun thing to think about.....what would you rather have......a law that took all the decent ideas in the present bill, and worked through them in a true bi-partisan fashion in the best interests of our country, ending up with a law that may leave a few groups wishing for more, but really was designed to right the course of this unworkable mess....OR....
The law that will be passed in 2009 by a Democrat Congress and Democrat president?
OK.....it's not that funny....
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Immigration
After reading about all the immigration issues, proposed bills and reforms, and talking to a lot of people who know more than I do, I make the following observations:
1. Something meaningful needs to be done.
2. There are a lot of good ideas being discussed.
3. Sooner would be better than later.
4. If there were ever a situation where Congress and the President should work together in a bi-partisan fashion for the good of the country, this is it.
Now, here is a PREDICTION.........
There will not be comprehensive immigration reform, nor will there even be a viable bill presented by Congress, until 2009.
It's difficult to say, but my prediction is going to come true because the Democrats will NEVER let an immigration law get passed while Bush is President. If you read all the proposals being bantered about, from both Democrats and Republicans, it's clear there is the making for a sweeping new law that will address the present crisis. It cries out to be addressed, NOW, and for the future of our economy, our security, and our culture.
Is President Bush a belligerent jerk about most things? Surely he is. But isn't it clear that everything in the immigration realm is negotiable? Isn't it also clear that if Congress and the President WANTED to fashion a law that dealt with all the issues, they could? Would the President negotiate on the areas of disagreement on immigration? Yeah, he would. And yeah, part of the reason would be for his "legacy", as the President who passed immigration reform. It won't save him from the Iraq war legacy, and he surely knows it. So, the Democrats COULD negotiate the fine points with him and his people.
Do you think they will? Or will they windbag their way through as much rhetoric and mud as they can, and then we will all look up, the election of 2008 will have occurred, and Hillary or Edwards will be President, and then they can pass a law that suits THEM, and their proud new constituents, and they can take the credit for it.
Looking at the Democrats as a whole here and now, with a sorrowed and shameful feeling that my prediction is dead on correct, I will say to the Democrats in Congress....
If you cannot reform the immigration laws NOW......SHAME ON YOU!!!
1. Something meaningful needs to be done.
2. There are a lot of good ideas being discussed.
3. Sooner would be better than later.
4. If there were ever a situation where Congress and the President should work together in a bi-partisan fashion for the good of the country, this is it.
Now, here is a PREDICTION.........
There will not be comprehensive immigration reform, nor will there even be a viable bill presented by Congress, until 2009.
It's difficult to say, but my prediction is going to come true because the Democrats will NEVER let an immigration law get passed while Bush is President. If you read all the proposals being bantered about, from both Democrats and Republicans, it's clear there is the making for a sweeping new law that will address the present crisis. It cries out to be addressed, NOW, and for the future of our economy, our security, and our culture.
Is President Bush a belligerent jerk about most things? Surely he is. But isn't it clear that everything in the immigration realm is negotiable? Isn't it also clear that if Congress and the President WANTED to fashion a law that dealt with all the issues, they could? Would the President negotiate on the areas of disagreement on immigration? Yeah, he would. And yeah, part of the reason would be for his "legacy", as the President who passed immigration reform. It won't save him from the Iraq war legacy, and he surely knows it. So, the Democrats COULD negotiate the fine points with him and his people.
Do you think they will? Or will they windbag their way through as much rhetoric and mud as they can, and then we will all look up, the election of 2008 will have occurred, and Hillary or Edwards will be President, and then they can pass a law that suits THEM, and their proud new constituents, and they can take the credit for it.
Looking at the Democrats as a whole here and now, with a sorrowed and shameful feeling that my prediction is dead on correct, I will say to the Democrats in Congress....
If you cannot reform the immigration laws NOW......SHAME ON YOU!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)