Seattle’s Do-Nothing Congressman-for-Life
I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t think highly of Rep. Jim McDermott, especially after his trip to Baghdad right before the war started. Let’s recall that Rep. McDermott said that he’d trust Saddam Hussein more than he’d trust President Bush:
The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC’s “This Week.” Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.”
McDermott didn’t backpedal at all: “I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation…It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they’re going back to and saying it’s al Qaeda again.” When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, “I think the president would mislead the American people.”
An American official floating unsubstantiated allegations against an American president during a visit to Baghdad would be troubling enough. But McDermott compounded his problem by insisting, despite its twelve years of verifiable prevarication, that the Iraqi regime should be given the benefit of the doubt on inspections and disarmament. Said McDermott on “This Week”: “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value.”
In Rep. McDermott’s mind, Saddam deserved “the benefit of the doubt” but it wouldn’t surprise Rep. McDermott if President Bush misled “the American people” to take us to war.
That’s awful on its own but it isn’t the only stain on Rep. McDermott’s thin record. Other than consistently seeing the United State through a hostile lens, what has Seattle’s Congressman-for-Life done?
Steve Beren’s campaign has a summary of what he’s been about this session:
Jim McDermott and his fellow Democrats took control of congress in 2006 with claims to a mandate and big promises, but the latest (May 20) Rasmussen survey found that voters have a very, very low opinion of congress. Excerpts from the report follow:
“Just 13% give the national legislature good or excellent ratings, while 47% say it is doing a poor job…Over half of Republicans (58%) say congress is doing a poor job. That number has dropped slightly over the past month. Just 31% of Democrats give cngress poor ratings. That number has increased slightly over the past month… Just 12% of voters think congress has passed legislation to improve life in America within the past year. Most (61%) disagree and say congress has done nothing to improve life throughout the nation. Voters have little hope for the near future. Just 37% think it is even somewhat likely that congress will seriously address important problems in the next six months. Most (56%) say that congress is unlikely to face up to the issues of the day. Seventy-one percent (71%) think Members of congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than helping people. Just 14% disagree.”
That’s congress for you. That’s the Democrats. That’s McDermott’s congress: failure, disappointment, nothing to improve the nation, not facing up to the issues of the day, more interested in his own political career than helping people. That’s McDermott, and that’s McDermott’s congress.
There’s a reason why Congress’s approval rating is lower than President Bush’s approval rating. The Democratic leadership has worked hard to ‘earn’ the reputation of being a do almost nothing congress. Their first year, their list of accomplishments was that they got a minimum wage bill passed. I noted at the time that that’s only because they attached it to the Iraq War supplemental bill and while they included tax cut for small businesses. It’s also worth noting that the Iraq War supplemental passed moths after President Bush proposed it.
Another ‘accomplishment’ of this ‘Do Almost Nothing Congress’ is their letting the Patriot Act lapse, thereby blinding our intelligence agencies to huge amounts of intelligence. If terrorists hit us in the United States, the blood will be directly on the Democrats’ hands.
Rep. McDermott has advocated single-payer universal health care, something that even its advocates say has its faults. Here’s what an AMSA study said about single-payer:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Removing the profit motive for health care, or anything else for that matter, and that product will stop getting produced in a heartbeat. I’ll bet the ranch on that. AMSA says that “the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs” is a positive, then notes that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development.” COULD lead to a “reduction in overall research and development”???
This is what Rep. McDermott’s been pushing as long as I’ve seen him in the House or Representatives. It’s a system with serious flaws. It hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried.
Jim McDermott’s list of accomplishments is almost as thin as Barack Obama’s, which is saying something considering Sen. Obama has been in the Senate 17 less years than has Rep. McDermott. It’s time for Seattle voters to ask the question whether they want someone who’s done next to nothing to continue representing them or if they’d rather have someone with a positive agenda representing them. If they want someone who’ll actually get positive things done, then that eliminates Rep. McDermott from consideration.
Technorati Tags: Baghdad Jim, Saddam, Jim McDermott, Health Care, Single Payer, Steve Beren, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
May 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
What I dont understand is why people are claiming that Democrats would gain 25 seats if thety are so unpopular. I mean since when did the party in control of an unpopular congress increase their majority?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Can someone explain to me why conservatives dislike universal health care so much?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Here’s why conservatives so strongly oppose government run health care (from http://www.berenforcongress.com):
“Government-run health care would be a disaster. It would lead to a massive tax increase, with nothing to show for it. In fact, government-run health care would actually have negative effects.
“It would increase bureaucracy and delays, it would drive up costs, and it would decrease the quality of care. It would drive some of the best medical professionals out of the field, and it would discourage talented young people from entering the field in the first place. Perhaps most of all, it would lead to a reduction in services offered. The resulting rationing of health care services would have devastating effects, especially on the poor and the elderly.
“Yet, the Democratic Party – from my opponent Jim McDermott to Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton – favor government-run health care over reliance on free market solutions. McDermott in particular is one of the most extreme proponents of the government taking over health care. But the last thing we need is to follow the European path of government interference, bureaucracy, and massive taxation.
“The priority in health care reform is putting individuals in more direct contact with providers, reducing the role of insurance companies, government regulators, employers, and attorneys. The current system, with heavy government and middleman involvement, is bureaucratic, inefficient, and a primary cause of rising health care costs.
“There should be increased competition among health insurance carriers to provide consumers more options and more variation in benefit plans. This will lead to coverage that is less expensive, based on individual need, and with more choices and options for the health care consumers.
“The medical expense tax deduction should be greatly increased, and all drug purchases and insurance premiums should be fully tax-deductible. Eligibility for tax-free medical savings accounts should be greatly expanded. Consumers should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. Congress should pass tort reform to restrict excessive awards (including punitive damage awards) and to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.”
May 27th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Freedom Liem. You know, one of those principles we had a revolution for about 230 years ago.
Some of us just want the government stay the hell out of the way, leave us alone, stay out of our lives, our pocket books and our own personal business. If I can afford to take care of my own family, pick my own health insurance, physician and make my own decisions about what when and where I do things, why on earth would I want the government to do it for me?
It screws up averything it gets its hands as it is.
No thanks, Id rather have the freedsom to screw up on my own and live with the consequences, than to let bureaucrats do it for me.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
America currently has the most expensive health care system in the world and yet there are people who go bankrupt paying for medical bills. So my question to you is what happens if you can’t afford health care? What amount of freedom do people have in situations where they have to choose between having a roof over their heads and feeding their family versus their health? Or is it just as simple for you as saying ‘Too bad’?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
If the government wants to offer its own health service, or pay for those who either cannot afford their own health care, or were so careless with their own finances as to be unable to afford it, thats fine, but why force us all into it?
Why fiddle around with what a lot of people already have and are happy with?
Keep it voluntary. Offer people a choice. I’d probably piss and moan about having to pay the taxes for it, but as long I had the option of taking it or leaving it, I could handle it.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
THe idea Hat is, that since the Republicans right now couldn’t hit their ass with both hands tied behind their back, the Dems will automatically gain seats.
Why should anyone vote for a party thats trying to act like moderate Democrats when there’s already a party half full of real moderate Democrats. If you can understand that. Your smarter than the entire RNC right now.