Badin Spirit Olympics
Adventure Summit
SWBL wrestling championships
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > December > 24 > Entry
Editorial: New year needs new political tone
In this season of peace to man, political compromise is in the news.
In Washington, the Democrats pushing President Barack Obama’s health care plans had to compromise so much with other Democrats — often called “moderates” — that they engendered a revolt on their left.
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown got caught up.
From the time of his election, he has been seen as a darling of the liberals. He has supported not only the health care bill in general, but the public option, a federally run insurance plan that people who don’t have insurance at work could buy into.
The public option hit a political brick wall. At that point a lot of liberals turned against the broader health reform bill. Talk show hosts, bloggers and former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean left. But Sen. Brown, like the other liberal senators, stuck in there.
He’s right. The health care proposal is still historic and progressive. Moreover, the liberals simply don’t have control of Congress. And a senator’s job is to make things happen. To start all over now, as some have suggested, would almost certainly mean nothing would happen. (The part of the compromise that gave special gifts to Nebraska was unseemly, though, and should be rescinded.)
Meanwhile, in Columbus, five Republican votes were needed in the Senate to pass a budget-balancing proposal. The proposal made sense by any nonpartisan standard, but was identified with Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland. It entailed delaying part of a tax cut.
At a time when states and localities all over the country are raising taxes, and when Ohio has already cut spending and payrolls sharply, it should have been the easiest of measures to get agreement on.
But getting the five votes took forever. And they turned out not to include Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering.
That’s a shame. He has courted the image of a get-it-done guy, rather than a rigid ideologue or partisan. He should have been there on this one.
(If Sens. Brown and Husted are being compared, perhaps it should be noted that Sen. Brown’s compromise was within his own party.)
After the first of the year, the general matter of compromise could move to center stage locally. After eight years of being wholly Democratic, the Dayton City Commission will be joined by a non-Democratic mayor.
City Hall has had a lot of problems this decade, but lack of cohesion hasn’t been one of them. Teamwork has prevailed. Some might say that the benefits to the city have been minimal. But people who have seen dysfunctional legislative bodies know how much worse things could be.
Federal, state and local politicians should make a general New Year’s commitment to compromise, meaning that they reject the politics of polarization that prevails in Washington, of playing primarily to their most fervent supporters.
President Obama, Sen. Brown and Sen. Husted need to let the fire-breathers in their parties breathe their fire at them. Dayton’s leaders need to focus on the broad community, not the loud voices.
The most important player is, of course, the president. He has not fulfilled the promise of his pre-presidential rhetoric about how the words “blue” and “red” don’t capture who the American people really are. He has not been a healer.
But 2009 was a peculiar year. He needed to pursue a bold economic stimulus and to finally make good on the pursuit of universal health care. There was probably never any chance of getting Republican support on either.
But not all issues need be so divisive along party lines. The time is near for him to turn a corner — and to be followed.
Permalink | Comments (31) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National Politics, Ohio politics
Comments
By Sick of it!
December 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
Tax payers are tired of back room deals, federal subsidies and business as usual. They are bankrupting our future. Throw them all out and start over.
By calvin
December 24, 2009 4:23 PM | Link to this
I listened to a Whio radio program Wednesday with some manager of Cox Communications answering questions. He said that the Atlanta Cox newspaper doesn’t do endorsements any longer. DDN should follow that lead. Too bad they couldn’t have thought of it here, first. Also he said a paper doesn’t endorse a party. The DDN should follow that lead of the Atlanta Constitution. As the democrat party leads us into things not allowed in the constitution, it’s time for the DDN to take a good look at the Constitution, guiding missive and the newspaper both, and change their divisive direction. The Cox Communications person needs to make a chanage in people rowing the boat at DDN. It won’t change course without fresh blood.
By Tom
December 24, 2009 10:37 PM | Link to this
We may no longer be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave but, isn’t that what the DDN wanted? The poor may get basic service with the knowledge that government will take care of them for pennies on the dollar when it comes to health care meanwhile the quality will go down for everyone else. Make no mistake that we’ll on be on government care because that was the whole idea. So, I admire anyone in Washington or Columbus that said Democrats can take all of the credit or all of the blame. Merry Christmas.
By Calvin
December 25, 2009 7:36 AM | Link to this
I was stunned that the Cox Atlanta Constitution was not endorsing politicians and was not endorsing a party, which the fellow Cox paper DDN is clearly doing. Even the headlines they choose indicate their positive approach toward the Democrat party and the certain politicians they favor. It’s time for a new staff at DDN—that’s the problem. EVeryone should call, write, email the management of Cox with their own personal opinion. Mine is that I’m tired of watching the continual parade of how wonderful it will be after the Dems implement nationlized healthcare that supposedly increased coverage for many illegals and others who currently don’t choose to carry insurance AND does this without increasing the cost to those who have insurance currently. Anyone who believes the healthcare plan they have at work isn’t going up because of manadates that they have no lifetime payment limits, must include pre-existing conditions, cannot import cheap drugs from Canada after Senate voted against an amendment to allow people to pay less in the US—and does all this without increasing insurance costs has their head in the sand. While the DDN and Dems keep saying that they are protecting people against the evil insurance companies, they actually are giving them big price increases. They traded AARP support for increasing AARP ability to make money from selling insurance. AARP is an insurance seller, not someone caring about older folk. Now Medicare is going to be cut to allow government to give away healthcare to those illegals and those who don’t work. But it will buy votes. Maybe Obama can start ACORN INSURANCE for all his past friends to have another source of income.
By dhampton100
December 25, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this
It amazes me when people say that providing healthcare for Americans violates the constitution. I’ve never seen the word “healthcare” in the constitution. It also baffles me how the Republican party manages to convince hardworking stiffs to vote against their own self-interests baffles me. The only people who benefit from keeping the government out of the healthcare business are rich CEO’s of healthcare companies and wealthy stockbrokers. It certainly does not benefit the common person for the government to demand that insurance companies stop robbing us. It reminds me of how, during slavery, some slave owners convinced “some blacks” that being a slave was in their best interest and they should not seek to be free. In fact they should protest against anyone trying to free them. Every time I see a “tea party” protest I think of those compliant slaves.
By Tom
December 25, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
The Tea Party people don’t have a better idea because they think a third party is the answer. If healthcare was such a great idea, why were the the last 2 votes mot done during daytime hours and cost millions of dollars to secure the votes from the “moderates” against the will of the American people? But, if you are impressed how the Dems have acted in Washington and Columbus then there is no reason for them to spend a dime on future elections because they’ll have nothing to worry about and it will cut out half of the political ads ( now that would make me happy ).
By Larry
December 25, 2009 9:45 AM | Link to this
If it isn’t in the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional? Is anybody home? They’d love for you to be in Columbus or Washington. Although health provided by the government is a problem, since it isn’t in the U.S. Constitution, I think people have the problem with mandates calling for fines and jail. If you think you’ll get better coverage for nothing, well…good luck.
By westbrook
December 26, 2009 12:41 AM | Link to this
Somebody mentioned Currently, a 60-year-old likely would pay five or six times more for private medical insurance than someone in his twenties but it may not be true always check www.bit.ly/7bwEx2 for lower price coverages
By Kevin
December 26, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this
DHampton should read all of the Constitution - specifically the 10th Ammendment! If it’s not specifically allowed to the federal government, it is reserved to the states. “Health Insurance” s you mentioned is not listed - so it is NOT the feds authority! This plan will ruin our health program. Changes/ Yes but not a federal forced health care.
By Tom
December 26, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this
I don’t know who they think will pay for everything when the agenda is to take over as many people’s lives as possible. It’s a shame that the goal is to eliminate as many jobs as possible. In this case, they don’t want you to afford private health insurance and as a former controller many companies will opt out of this benefit letting their employees fall to government coverage. Do doctors want to be government employees? Will there be an incentive for them to go into that field and, what about incentives to come up with new drugs and procedures thru research?
By MidnightWriter
December 26, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Supreme Court decisions have upheld that authority time and time again. As for the 10th Amendment, it does not grant states the power to nullify or violate federal laws. Those of you who are saying “read the Constitution,” should make an effort to understand what it is written there and not just follow Glenn Beck’s absolutely ridiculous and painfully ignorant lead.
By Larry
December 26, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this
I’m sure there are many that think governments should provide health, car, housing and income. Of course, they are more likely to have disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life as we know it. For those people, hang in, Washington is trying to move us in that direction. I don’t know who will be left to pay for it though.
By R J..
December 26, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this
The Constitution Doesn’t state Health Care, but it has been ruled by the Supreme Court, that Congress DOESN’T have the right to MANDATE one item to all of America. You can’t say Everyone MUST get Helath care or get Fined or sent to jail. That is where it violates the Constitution.. FDR tried to do that and each time the Supreme Court ruled against him. Making something as a Mandate is against the law in many ways. If Congress can make a mandate, then why can’t they say We must all buy a GM car or WHY can’t they mandate English to be the spoken word in the USA. What will happen when the President signs this into law,someone will file a suit for the Court to hear it, will hear the case within days,The Court will rule it illegal. Dem’s will then have a save face , HEY see we tried to get you all Health Care, those nasty Courts ruled against you. Blame it on the Courts rather then at their own selfs. they will find out in Nov how America feels about what they did. Even the Mayor of Chicago has spoken out against what they are doing, Beware in Nov he said, this will backfire on Dem party.
By Don Speyer
December 26, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this
Nebraska was not the only State to get special treatment in the Health Care Bill. Senator Brown should stand up for his constituents and demand that all States be treated equally in the bill.
By MidnightWriter
December 26, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this
The Constitution also doesn’t say we need an Air Force. And yet there’s a base right here in this region. Why? Because Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress the power to provide for the common defense—and provide for the general welfare. Wright Patterson Air Force Base exists because of the common defense. The Health Care bill exists because of the general welfare. Supreme Court precedents support this which is why we also have a CIA, Medicare, Social Security, and a space program. If you want to debate the costs, fine, but just drop the “this is unconstitutional” foolishness.
By null
December 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
Case law states forcing health care is illegal: Direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government. Linder vs United States, 285 US 5, 1925 The Supreme Court has made the Constitutional principle clear: Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government. State of Oregon V Ashcroft, DC Cv-01-01647-JO, 2004 It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within it’s borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of the states police power. Barsky vs Board of Regents, 347 US 442, 1954 The Attorney general “may not regulate the doctor patient relationship to advance federal policy” Conant vs Walters, 309 F 3rd 629, 2002 There are more…
By TomBob
December 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Link to this
WHAT AMAZES ME IS THE CONTINUTED DDN CENSORSHIP ON CRIME STORIES. WHY THE BAN ON CRIME STORY COMMENTS?
By WonderBoy
December 26, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
This stage has been passed without Republicans, you’d think the editors would jump for joy that the Democrats can bask in the glory. I’m curious if they would ask the Democrats to compromise with the Republicans on something or is it a one-way street?
By DDN hater
December 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Link to this
Not only is this column Democtratically biased, it is vague. Who uses the term “it took forever” when trying to state political facts? And then they say “he courted the image of a get-it-done guy.” What the hell does that statement mean?
By Z
December 26, 2009 10:20 PM | Link to this
Let’s cut the bull that the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution can be interpreted to mean government provided health care. The clause does not say that. In the Constitution the word “welfare” is used in the context of states and not persons (individuals).
By DDN hater
December 26, 2009 10:49 PM | Link to this
Not only is this column Democtratically biased, it is vague. Who uses the term “it took forever” when trying to state political facts? And then they say “he courted the image of a get-it-done guy.” What the hell does that statement mean?
By JT
December 27, 2009 1:39 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Null and Z I’m amazed at some of the fool posters here at DNN such as Midnightwriter. The CIA and space program can be argued for our defence but really SS and medicare? Arn’t they going broke - I don’t know why I’ve sent them lots of money! Why do I have to send them money for Freddy and Fanny(GSE’s) - I didn’t do any busness with them. Now the Gov wants to set up another GSE or worse in health care. Can I sue them for malpratice and expect to live regardless of the outcome? We might be able to save some money if we get our doctors from Pakistan like England…Don’t worry that they will try to blow up our airports like they did in England though. Why do the POLS exempt themselves?
By kurt
December 27, 2009 7:30 AM | Link to this
In a global economy [which our government created],THEY should have a restructuring plan.The only reason we have a cyclical economy,making victims of many is because there are far too many employed in government.Government puts NO tangible services out there that you have a choice in buying,but they DO demand top $$ for them,all the while crushing unionization in the private sector as “evil” They’re all professional liars.
By kurt
December 27, 2009 7:39 AM | Link to this
Congress was told in 1974 of the impending health care crisis—but only REPUBLICANS would now claim [36 YEARS LATER]-=-“Why the rush ?” Many claim an evil liberal plan—-in reality,America will no longer tolerate STATUS QUO—which happens to be a REPUBLICAN forte’.Their idea of “change” is what you’re entitled to after the fat-cats fill the representative’s pockets
By MidnightWriter
December 27, 2009 8:50 AM | Link to this
Oh, why do JT and Z hate the Founding Fathers who put the terms “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” in the Constitution? And why do they hate the Supreme Court Justices who have upheld the broad interpretations of those phrases? And why does Null site cases that are absolutely irrelevant to the Health Care Insurance Reform bills that are now in Congress? And why do so many mouth the words and blindly follow the leads of idiots like Limbaugh and Beck?
By MnM
December 27, 2009 6:54 PM | Link to this
MidnightWriter should have just wrote “blah blah blah” and been just as original as writing that Limbaugh and Beck idiots. DDN editors should worry about the tone of their own left-wing democrat party, the broken Obama promises, and the backroom, hidden negotiations of their left-wing darlings, including the slacker Sen Brown, before complaining about the “tone” of any republicans. The only tone the left-wing, butt-sore, DDN editors want to hear from republicans is “whatever you say ‘boss’”.
By George Lighter
December 31, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
It would be nice if parties could meet in the middle. The healthcare bill and cap and trade are not attractive in the sense that they either create new taxes, increase old taxes, create mandates, place federal govt. in charge of doctors services. The list is so extensive I would not want my legislator to support it.
By George Lighter
December 31, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this
It would be nice if parties could meet in the middle. The healthcare bill and cap and trade are not attractive in the sense that they either create new taxes, increase old taxes, create mandates, place federal govt. in charge of doctors services. The list is so extensive I would not want my legislator to support it.
By George Lighter
December 31, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this
It would be nice if parties could meet in the middle. The healthcare bill and cap and trade are not attractive in the sense that they either create new taxes, increase old taxes, create mandates, place federal govt. in charge of doctors services. The list is so extensive I would not want my legislator to support it.
By Squirrellygirl
January 4, 2010 12:49 PM | Link to this
The Health Care Bill is unconstitutional because it makes it mandatory to purchase health care from the gov’t, eventually it will be gov’t run exclusively. Also, the taxpayers don’t have say as to what they are being made to pay for, especially abortions and health care for illegals. Obama promised people making under $250,000 would not have their taxes increased, but these mandatory fees for health care ARE TAXES, and we can be imprisoned if we resist paying it!! TYRANNY!!!
By Squirrellygirl
January 4, 2010 2:09 PM | Link to this
This administration just wants to get their hands on 1/6th of our economy, and that is why they want this health care reform bill passed. Once passed, they will make a zillion changes to it, and along with their misinterpretations, they will own us. They will own our medical information, and they will own if and when we can have required surgery, etc. This is scary considering how political followers of Obama ignored the law and released personal info. from Jobs & Family Servs to the media about Joe the Plumber. Who’s to say they won’t do that with our medical information?