House GOP Reveals Health Care Repeal Bill

January 4th, 2011 at 12:05 am David Frum | 42 Comments |

| Print

Courtesy of Jake Tapper, here’s the link to the Republican bill to repeal the Democratic healthcare reform.

Call it “Plan A.” And after it goes nowhere, Republicans will need a Plan B. That will require more than 2 pages.

Recent Posts by David Frum



42 Comments so far ↓

  • baw1064

    Harry Reid should propose an identical bill in the Senate, and call it “The Donut Hole Preservation Act”

  • westony

    It’s funny how Republicans could write a Healthcare Repeal Bill. But didn’t bother to write their “own” Healthcare Bill. I notice I don’t hear Repeal and Replace. Just Repeal because they have nothing to replace it with.

  • TerryF98

    Wow, they actually managed to write a 2 page bill, sure beats the budget without numbers and the blank pages they touted as another bill.

    Way to go GOP.

  • jerseychix

    Childish. Would anybody like to point out to these morons the number of countries that have a reasonable healthcare plan for their citizens AND have unemployment numbers at our levels or better. Cause I can think of about 15 off the top of my head.

  • llbroo49

    Look. Yhey have to make an effort to repeal the Health Care Bill- that what their base wants. But you can tell they are not serious since they tried to pass off a two page essay as serious legislation. I quess they figured there was no need wasting an aides time writing a document that was goig nowhere.

    But the beauty of this is that for very little effort- the base will give them credit for trying and 5 years from now when most Americans have grown accustomed to Healthcare as it was enacted by the Democrats-no one will “remember” Republican efforts to repeal it.

  • solikemybeth

    Incredibly childish – they actually titled the bill “repeal of the job-killing health care act”. I’m guessing “repeal of the unconstitutional, job-killing, death panel creating, turn us all into socialists health care act” would have been longer than the actual bill.

  • nhthinker

    The bill will be a valuable as a political ads for the 2012 congressional elections.
    There is not a single Democrat in a swing district that will be on record as not being for the repeal of ObamaCare- but they will be forced into a tough choice. A perfect message for a short ad.

    It will not take very long to vote on and then Congress can get down to the business of creating legislation that keeps only the decent parts of ObamaCare.

  • Joe In NH

    As a Democrat reading about this bill and the various planned investigations the GOP is talking about, I have to be hopeful seeing the GOP not getting what Nov 2010 was about but as an American I find the upcoming pissing contest between the GOP and Democrats to be very sad. Democrats failed to focus 100% of their attention on jobs and the mortgage crisis and paid for it. Now the GOP is going to make the same mistake. As a President said —- it’s the economy stupid! We need to all come together and work on the most pressing issues but I doubt it will happen.

  • Banty

    Due to egregious overuse, the slogan “job killing” is losing its punch.

  • TerryF98

    GOP.

    Where are the Jobs?

  • dante

    I’m sorry, but this strikes me as utterly hilarious. Did the Republicans not learn anything from the 4 page “health care plan” that they put forward in 2009? Or their ridiculously short budget alternative that didn’t contain any numbers? I’m almost looking forward to this coming to a nice, LONG and healthy debate… Lets see:

    1) This will have a net INCREASE in our budget deficit as evaluated by the CBO.
    2) All of the positives (children staying on their parents health care, closing the “donut hole”, etc) would be repealed now, with no discernible benefit for the American people.

    In polling from right around the election, about 1/2 of Americans felt that the health care law should be repealed. The other 1/2 felt that it should be left in place or *strengthened*. I think that the numbers for repeal was ~48%. Is that really what the new Congress wants to hang it’s hat on? The Gingrich Republicans went for 60% issues, those that could garner support from 60% of the American people. The new Congress is shooting for 48% issues. That right there will tell you whether they’ll be successful over the long term or not.

  • valkayec

    For me, the most egregious part of what the GOP House is doing is regarding its attempted repeal has been to exempt ACA from “cutgo.” In other words, they know that the repeal will increase the deficit by ~$100 billion so they’ve exempted it from their own rule that requires any spending new program to be accompanied by a spending cut of an equal or greater amount.

    So much for GOP fiscal and deficit responsibility or concern.

  • Slide

    A CNN poll on HCR is interesting because often the question is asked very simply do you approve of disapprove of Obama’s HCR. The results – 54% to 43% would indicate that American’s disapprove. That is usually where the discussion ends.

    But what is often missed is that roughly 25% of those that disapprove do so because it didn’t go far enough – it is not liberal enough. Only 37% disapprove because it is too liberal. So if you add up those that approve of the bill and those that wish it were stronger you have 56% to the 37% that disapprove. BTW the three polls that CNN has done on this issue have showed that with each succeeding poll HCR has gotten more popular. I would only imagine that that will accelerate when some of the popular provisions get put into effect starting this month.

    Oh also the provisions preventing insurance companies from dropping those that get ill or not insuring those with pre-existing conditions are very popular with 61%-39% and 64%-35% approval-disapproval numbers respectively.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/27/cnnopinion-research-poll-december-17-19-health-care/

    I think the GOP is making a mistake here by misreading the polls.

  • Deep South Populist

    This is a great move by the GOP forcing the Dems go on record opposing repeal.

    There are quite a few Dem Senators up for reelection in red states in 2012.

  • TerryF98

    You will notice that the two “Conservative ” comments are all politics all the time. No mention of how this would effect peoples lives regarding pre existing condition, rescissions, children’s health policy, bankruptcy etc.

    No just if this will hep the GOP electorally.

    So you have a party with no ideas and a base with no soul or public spirit. Truly depressing for the country.

  • sandyg

    ….and once they repeal it, what the fuck do we do THEN?? Time to trot out the old Health Insurance Association of America ad featuring Harry and Louise, and start a new, endless and pointless squabble in the house.
    ‘Tis a tale told by idiots [sic]. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’

  • Banty

    They can’t repeal it. This is all about staging, and Dems in the House should usher this silly thing through to the Senate as fast as they can. Alternatively, hold the floor educating on HCR and highlighting how this thing is *not* about jobs, indeed these efforts increase that oft-cited bogeyman of “uncertainty”.

    And no, Deep South, no one voting Dem, even in the South, would be impressed if they voted for this thing.

  • Watusie

    The CBO says the health-care reform law cuts the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 20 years.

    So if the Republicans are going to repeal it, how are they going to pay for that $1.3 trillion?

  • lessadoabouteverything

    “It will not take very long to vote on and then Congress can get down to the business of creating legislation that keeps only the decent parts of ObamaCare.” Ok, and which would these be?

    DSP: how in the world would voting no on repeal make much of a difference if these politicians already voted yes? That is, lets say some Southern Dem. did vote yes on repeal after having voted yes on the original bill, do you honestly believe Republicans would not scream loud about he had voted yes in the first place?

  • Banty

    lessa, I’m waiting and wondering if it’s going to be “let’s keep coverage for pre-existing conditions that’s a good part” then “let’s get rid of the mandate, that’s a bad part”.

    ::sigh:: There are things to be addressed about the HCR bill, but I’m afraid all we got in Congress is not adults, more like folks who think along the lines of either “I like ice cream, more more ice cream” or “nobody gets ice cream, or vegetables, or ….”.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    bany, I know, Republicans have simply given up on solutions, the unpopular parts of the bill make the popular parts possible, and moreso, the popular and unpopular parts both bend the cost curve downward and will reduce the deficit long term.

    What are the Republican answers? Higher HSA’s, which serve as a tax dodge for the wealthy who already have health care insurance. And for those few small business owners who can benefit, ie. that have no insurance except catastrophic care the interest earned is so little that one doctors visit will eat up the interest earned.
    Tort reform (which I support to some degree but we can not and must not abolish the peoples right to have their day in court) but this has already been tried in Texas and has not mattered, costs have risen as much as everywhere else.
    And finally getting rid of states rights (strange Conservative position) of allowing insurers to sell across state lines bypassing whatever states regulations exist. This idea is simply crackpot as every insurer will go to Idaho and the insurers in Idaho will cherry pick the healthiest patients in every state.

    There is no there there for Republicans

  • Banty

    lessa, I agree that HSA’s currently only benefit those who currently have health insurance. But the question will be at some point, how should health insurance be set up, when it *is* more widely available (and yes that has to be some kind of all-in situation). HSA’s reward self-insuring for ordinary healthcare expenses, just like 401K’s reward savings for retirement. It’s not just for a tax bene.

    Tort reform does need to happen at some point, too. Although it’s not the panacea Republicans like to pretend. I think the states is the right place to work tort reform out; after all, tort statutes are a state matter. Texas tried a *cap* on awards, but it turns out lawsuits per se, even if capped, still motivate defensive medicine. It’s not the end of tort reform – there are other things to try (and the HCR bill actually underwrites some of this).

    I agree about the ‘race to the bottom’ that the “purchasing across state lines” would engender if we still have different laws state by state. But a *national* set of decent health care coverage standards would prevent this. David Frum has discussed this (I recall he did when he interviewed with Bill Moyers).

    So there things to do. We needn’t wash our hands of every idea, just because an initial implementation didn’t work, or because some ineffective or deleterious version of it was disingenuously proposed.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    banty, good points all. I have no objections to HSA’s or tort reform just that these alone are only on the fringe, a percentage point here or there. I am wary of the idea that Republicans would ever mandate a national set of health coverage, they had that chance themselves. And, to be honest, I like the Wyden option that States can opt out if they exceed Obamacares goal outcomes. In other words, if Oregon can do better, let them however they go about it.

    As to myself, I would have preferred a state by state method with health care funded by payroll taxes and a State insurance commissioner negotiating on behalf of the citizens with the insurance providers, thereby ending the idiocy of employer provided health care. People could then pick and choose themselves the plan they most like, with the option of buying a better plan out of pocket.
    But this is just me.

  • COProgressive

    ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’ nothing political about that title now is there?

    First, it is a meaningly jester to the Baggers.

    Second, when sent to the Senate it will die, never to see the light of day again.

    Third, Eric Cantor is a twit.

    We need to stop thinking of healthcare as insurance and start thinking of healthcare as a Trust Fund we leave to our posterity.

    Sickness & Injury Insurance DOES NOT equal healthcare!

    We spend $800B a YEAR on “defense”, that $8 TRILLION over ten years to kill people halfway around the world. A Single Payer Healthcare System would cost $100B a year and provide healthcare for ALL Americans from cradle to grave.

    “Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.” – James W. Frick

  • KBKY

    Honestly, this doesn’t bother me. The Republicans were elected by folks explicitly wanting them to try and repeal the Healthcare Act. So, they submitted a bill to repeal it. If you have a problem with anyone, have a problem with the voters. Specifically, you should probably complain about any voters that didn’t want repeal, but didn’t vote. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone here by assuming that all of the posters now calling this move stupid/childish/etc voted.

    If anything, it seems more likely that the Republicans created this bill to get it over with and appease the base. After it doesn’t work (which no one actually thinks it will), they’ll start with their more pressing concern which is budget cuts.

    For those posters who are complaining that we haven’t had a flood of new jobs and a completely rebounded economy, I’m afraid you’ll have to indulge me in a rant that has been building for awhile:
    We are not poor victims of an evil recession. I repeat, this recession was not something done to us by terrible unrelated powers (no, not even the evil cats of Wall Street). Everyone, yes, that means you and me, made bad decisions, inflated a boom, and now we are paying the price. No one is 100% a victim, because no one here was powerless during that time. We all, as a country, voted for the politicians that deregulated, took out bad loans, and didn’t want policies that would curb the boom. Just like no one now wants to pay higher taxes; curb Medicare/Social Security/Defense; or really any combination there of. Wait ten years and everyone will be whining that the evil government and the evil private sector led us into a defaulting economy and paying more in loan interest than any other domestic expense. This is the price we pay for our greed and myopic thinking and I’m sick and tired of everyone victimizing themselves. No matter what you think about the people in power, they have been doing their best to create jobs and stimulate the economy (it’s in their self-interest to do so) but, shocking, the economy is a very complicated thing that no one completely understands. It’s not going to rebound overnight or over a couple years, because the benefits that we reaped did not just come over one night or a couple years. This is reality and it’s way past time that everyone, Democrat and Republican, start taking responsibility for themselves and their role in this recession. This doesn’t mean we can’t help people, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t other effective job-creating policies that should be tried; it does mean that people need to be honest and accept the truth about this recession and how quickly we realistically can rebound (and we will rebound, economies are cyclical) even with ideal policies. If we don’t, we’ll just see the same recession happen in another decade or so.

  • COProgressive

    lessadoabouteverything wrote;
    ” I would have preferred a state by state method with health care funded by payroll taxes and a State insurance commissioner negotiating on behalf of the citizens with the insurance providers, thereby ending the idiocy of employer provided health care.”

    Two things…

    First, in the employer provided healthcare, the employer pays for a large portion of the insurance plan. I, too, think it should be eliminated freeing up cash for those honorable businesses that do provide benefits to compete on stronger footing with those cheapass companies who provide no benefits.

    Second, the main issue is the obsolete Sickness & Injury Insurance industry sitting inbetween the patient and the caregiver skimming 15-25% of every dollar spend for care. We need to put a stake in the heart of that industry and let it go the way of the buggy whip and slide rule industries.

    We need to stop thinking of healthcare as insurance and start thinking of healthcare as a Trust Fund we leave to our posterity.

    Sickness & Injury Insurance DOES NOT equal healthcare!

    “I still don’t get how my health care should be controlled by a system that was invented to compensate shippers for losses incurred due to storms and pirates.” – RUCerious – Think Progress dot Org

  • Slide

    are we really going to debate all this again? I’m having a flash of deja vu and I’m not enjoying it.

  • COProgressive

    KBKY wrote;
    “No one is 100% a victim, because no one here was powerless during that time.”

    While I agree with nearly everything you said, the above quote is where I think you are wrong. Individually, no one is 100% a victim, but as a society we are. The economic policies that have been propagated over the last 30 years have been done to benefit business at the detriment of “We, the People”. We haven’t seen much economic policies aimed to benefit the middle class American family until recently with the extension of unemployment benefits, and many American families would have prefered to keep their jobs rather than be forced to take unemployment checks.

    But the economic and monetary policies that have flooded the financial markets with cheap money made of nothing and the hidden avarice in the banking and financial services industry are far beyond the power of ever the collective voices of Americans. Those policies have debased our money, have undercut our savings and have allowed the flow of American’s life saving to flow UP. While working class American’s net worth has remained steady or has declined over the last 30 years, the very wealthy and politically connected have seen their net worth increase a hundred or two hundred fold.

    We are deeply in debt, from a number of reasons including the notion that “deficits don’t matter” to “Starve the Beast” to two unfunded wars to an unregulated financial market place where the motto was/is “Greed is Good”. There are some who have benefitted greatly over the last 30 years from taking future money from our kids and grandkids piggy banks and leaving IOU’s to China in their place.

    While I may be more cynical about the future of our country than you, and I do hope you are correct and I wrong, the fact that we are not powerless just doesn’t seem to ring true to me.

    “The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don’t have it.”
    - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

  • drcme

    What Slide said.

  • Bebe99

    I agree with KBKY that we the people are responsible for the government we’ve got. I’m reminded of that quote that’s been variously attributed to Reagan and de Toqueville that a democracy can not last because the people eventually learn they can vote themselves all kinds of wonderful benefits without paying for them. Although this quote is mostly used as an argument against Social Security and welfare. But, since we’ve fought two wars on borrowed money, I’d add that the people can also vote themselves some patriotic wars and all the best war gadgetry money can buy and never have to pay for those either. So both parties have surely contributed to our downfall, but it is after all, what the people wanted. I do apologize to my children.

  • greg_barton

    @KBKY:

    Two words: “Ownership Society”

  • KBKY

    @COProgressive
    I do see your point, but I think that that’s the attitude that we need to change. The top 1% of the population has only 1% of the vote. Who voted for the Presidents and Congressmen that created those big business policies? Did only big businessmen and the wealthy vote for Reagan? Politicians are the most self-interested creatures of all, if the middle class (the majority of the nation), began writing letters, calling, etc., they would listen. Who are the consumers that demanded the cheapest possible price of goods with the lowest taxes? I 100% agree with you that the wealthy has seen their lot rise while the fortunes of the rest fell (or at least didn’t rise as fast), but that wouldn’t have happened if people had educated themselves on the candidates and voted for the politicians that wanted more regulations (and there were politicians that wanted more regulations). The politicians haven’t even been subtle about their priorities or interests, Americans just didn’t do anything about it.

    In one of these articles, a poster showed that 56% of Americans were in favor of higher taxes on people making over $1 million dollars a year. Where were those people during November? Why didn’t they write or call their representatives? Who voted (twice!) for a President that said deficits don’t matter? In the end, we give power to folks that are usually honest about what policies they will pursue and then we whine when they pursue them. Why do you think politicians do so much polling? They are desperate to find out how to please their constituents, the problem is that the constituents want to have their cake and eat it too. They want economic bubbles without recessions, tax cuts and expanded entitlements without deficits. People need to grow up and stop blaming their problems on the politicians that they elected to serve their interests. We like being powerless because the powerless don’t have a responsibility to themselves or their nation. Powerless is easy, powerless is convenient, powerless means it’s not our fault. The more we tell ourselves that we are the victims, the more we ensure that things will get rockier.

    I’m not sure which of the two of us is more cynical. I think we are equally cynical for different reasons. You think things won’t change because the voter doesn’t have the power, I think that things won’t change because the voter is too irresponsible to acknowledge or use his power.

  • pnwguy

    KBKY:

    Rant away. Your point has much validity. And even if there is more blame to be put on certain parties, we (collectively) voted the buffoons in. We as voters and we as consumers aren’t powerless.

  • Gramps

    This is a very large pile of Bravo Sierra… just so much posturing for their wingnut base and a sop to placate the tea-baggers…

    It will go nowhere; they’ll get all the press coverage on the 12th [The Round Mound of Drug Addicted Sound's, birthday!] and than just move along.

    Sorry folks, nothing to see there…!

  • KBKY

    @ greg_barton
    Taking responsibility for yourself and your actions isn’t a Republican concept, it isn’t a Democratic concept, it’s a part of being an adult. I’m not arguing for tax cuts, I’m arguing that people stop victimizing themselves and pretending that they didn’t have a role in our nation’s decisions. I’m assuming by your post that you weren’t a fan of George W. Bush, which is fine, I wasn’t really either. Did you vote in all of the elections from 2000 – 2008? Did you write letters or call your representatives in Congress when a big vote was coming up? Do you talk to pollsters, even when they called during dinner? A huge percentage of this nation disapproved of President Bush and his policies. When they decided to do something about it, make their opinions known etc., he lost power and wasn’t able to pass his signature legislation. Neither you nor America was powerless to stop the tenets of his “ownership society”, they just didn’t care enough until we were in a giant, recession sized hole. I’ll agree with COProgressive that we didn’t dig all on our own, but I’m sick of people acting like we didn’t at least provide the shovels.

  • pnwguy

    KBKY:

    “I’ll agree with COProgressive that we didn’t dig all on our own, but I’m sick of people acting like we didn’t at least provide the shovels.”

    I think you get the prize for the most articulate and necessary comment of the week here.

  • COProgressive

    KBKY wrote;
    “Who voted for the Presidents and Congressmen that created those big business policies? Did only big businessmen and the wealthy vote for Reagan? Politicians are the most self-interested creatures of all, if the middle class (the majority of the nation), began writing letters, calling, etc., they would listen.”

    You’ve opened another can of worms. Yes, politicians are the most self-interested creatures of all. To get elected, or re-elected, they need both the votes of their constituents AND MONEY. Now while calls and letters do allow us to voice our preferences on any number of issues and may or may not have an effect on the voting patterns of our representative, a BIG CHECK and an eyeball to eyball meeting and whisper in the ear has more effect on the representative’s vote than a box full of letters or a voice mailbox full of suggestions.

    The major problem we, as a nation, have is the two party system. Three parties counting we independents. People mindlessly put on the facepaint and vote for the Party along the same lines as they root for a football team. It’s just too hard to deal with the issues, just listen to the rhetoric excoriating the other Parties candidate to justify pulling the lever for the Blue guy or the Red guy. Then when mister Blue or Red shows up in Washington they follow the Party line and humbly accept the checks to put into the next campaign fund and do the bidding to the guys with the BIG CHECKS.

    “Voters quickly forget what a man says.” – Richard Nixon (1913-1994)

  • lessadoabouteverything

    “I’ll agree with COProgressive that we didn’t dig all on our own, but I’m sick of people acting like we didn’t at least provide the shovels.” I agree is a pithy quote but inaccurate. Why should I be accorded blame for lacking the ability to stop the whole that was being dug? I simply do not agree with everyone is to blame because in the end it absolves us all and because we are not all to blame. Many people predicted the disastrous likely consequences of Bush and his tax cuts, and to up them after 9/11 was crazy. If the surpluses had been put into a lock box, and if we did not needlessly deregulate the banking industry then assuredly we would be in a much better place now, the recession would have been less severe since the housing boom would have been far smaller. And being that literally hundreds of billions of the tax cuts went to finance the factory construction boom in China (something I was on hand to witness) the outsourcing of jobs would have been slower and more manageable.

    So no, I did not provide the shovel. Do not pin this on me.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    kbky: Just like no one now wants to pay higher taxes; curb Medicare/Social Security/Defense; or really any combination there of.

    I am sorry, but this is not true. Warren Buffett has publicly said Tax me more, and I am perfectly happy to pay higher taxes. And I have also called for the retirement age to be increased to 70 with the elimination of early retirement at 62, even though this means an additional 8 years of work for me. I would want to see the Defense cuts you have in mind, eliminating unnecessary bases because they are in some high ranking Congressmans district I am for, not spending the money to armor the vehicles in Afghanistan I say hell no.

  • KBKY

    @COProgressive
    You are absolutely correct about money, but why is money so influential in campaigns? I would argue that it allows one politician to hit voters with his/her message more often. More money = more ads = more voter knowledge of you position. It’s why Obama bought a 30 minute ad last year. Money means nothing if you can’t get elected. And, while influential, it’s nowhere near a definite. Meg Whitman outspent her competitor and didn’t win, many Democrats outspent their opponents this political season and also didn’t win. Money is important, but only if you have the message to back it up.

    The fact is, most politicians are pretty honest about the types of policies that they are going to pursue. In the absence of a huge unforeseen event, most vote and argue for predictable things. Voters knew coming into November that if Republicans won, they would cut taxes, make an effort to repeal healthcare reform, and cut spending (excepting defense and Medicare). Voters knew this and many decided not to vote anyway. That’s their decision and their right, but they can’t act victimized and/or blame the politicians when the deficit doesn’t decrease. The quote at the end of your post encapsulates my argument perfectly: if the voter quickly forgets what the man says, whose fault is it when he follows through on his promises?

  • KBKY

    @lessadoabouteverything
    I must strongly disagree with your post. Having individual voters take responsibility for their votes (or lack of votes) and civic involvement doesn’t absolve them of blame, it ensures that they acknowledge their vital role in our government process.

    You are correct that many people predicted this recession, but we didn’t vote for them. You are correct that there were others that wanted to put our surpluses in a lock box, but we didn’t vote for them either. As hard as it is to accept, the majority of Americans expected the boom to last forever and voted accordingly. You mention the outsourcing of jobs, but it is American consumers that demanded the lowest possible prices on goods, ensuring that factories went overseas where manufacturing is cheaper.

    In the end, a democracy is driven by the actions and decisions of its voters. America’s voters wanted low taxes, cheap goods, houses that they couldn’t afford, and entitlements that they hadn’t earned. Our politicians responded and we got exactly what we were promised: a huge deficit, high income inequality, and a recession. My point is not to make people feel guilty or defensive about the politicians that they voted for or the policies that they supported, it is to push people to acknowledge the responsibilities of the governed in a democracy. This responsibility means that we can’t pretend to be passive victims during hard times, because even passivity is viewed as a conscious decision and will influence our politicians. The citizens of this country have the power to direct our nation’s policy and path forward, it’s past time that we step up and claim it.

  • lessadoabouteverything

    “Having individual voters take responsibility for their votes (or lack of votes) and civic involvement doesn’t absolve them of blame, it ensures that they acknowledge their vital role in our government process.”

    I agree with that provided it is the right individuals. Stating it is everyones fault is a form of absolving everyone.

    I do not disagree with anything you wrote, except that the outsourcing of jobs would have been slower and allowed for an easier transition, if you give me a lot of money now I would invest it in real estate in Chennai or Chongqing not in the States. The Republicans foolishly believed it would be as in the time of Kennedy, with it invested in the states. You do not go into hock to invest in other countries.

    My only real gripe with your post is that I, personally, am not to blame for this mess. One, I was not even in the states, and two I did not vote for Bush.

    “My point is not to make people feel guilty or defensive about the politicians that they voted for or the policies that they supported” But I see nothing wrong with making the people who voted for Bush acknowledge that he was as bad as he was, and that Clinton was as good as he was, and that the people who voted for Bush spent the entire time stating how bad Clinton was but are now stating that he was actually pretty good and now nowhere as bad as Obama is.

    I, for one, am happy to accept the fault of supporting the war in Iraq, not because I think the principle was wrong, Hussein was a genocidal tyrant, but because Bush had the worst Defense Secretary ever running the show. But what could I do, how was I to know that Rumsfeld would be such a disaster?

    I do agree with your points about the responsibilities of the governed but the outcome is not always the fault of the governed.