For the first time since President Theodore Roosevelt began the quest for a national health-care system more than 100 years ago, the Democrat-led House and Senate took the biggest step toward achieving that goal by giving 32 million Americans access to insurance. Congress rewrote the rules for Wall Street in the most comprehensive way since the Great Depression. It spent more than $1.67 trillion to revive an economy on the verge of a depression, including tax cuts for most Americans, jobs for more than 3 million, construction of roads and bridges and investment in alternative energy; ended an almost two-decade ban against openly gay men and women serving in the military, and is poised today to ratify a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.
And I thought, wow, that's a lot.
And then I thought, gosh, the Republicans could have had a hand in writing all of that legislation if they hadn't adopted that whole "Party of No" schtick.
The second thing I saw this morning was the lead headline in my print edition of the New York Times, "Senate Set to Give Obama a Victory on Arms Control."
And I thought, why did the Republicans take what should have been a bipartisan vote -- that no one in the country would have even noticed -- and turn it into a legislative "victory" for the president?
Which brings me to my final thought for the morning. (Yeah, right.) Even though the "Party of No" strategy worked politically for the GOP in the short-term -- by retaking the House and gaining seats in the Senate -- was it really worth it in the long run to stand idly by while so much was accomplished? Was it in the best interest of the country? If Republicans really care so much about policy and its impact on Americans, shouldn't they at least participate in its shaping?
No comments:
Post a Comment