Published on November 8, 2004 By Deference In Politics
What do you get when you have a Republican President, a Republican controlled Senate and House, and a Supreme Court looking to add another one or two justices to the bench? Americans will see in the upcoming four years what fruits will be yielded from this year’s election.

According to President Bush, with his “mandate” of 31% of the voting electorate, those fruits will come in the form of an overhaul of social security wherein money will be diverted from the federal pool to private accounts, a new attempt at an amendment to ban same-sex marriage; emboldened by 11 states outlawing it, an address of the tax code, and caps on victim’s damage claims due to malpractice.

Huh? I thought America voted overwhelmingly for the ambiguous goods known as “morals”. This is what we will receive? I was already able to disengage myself from the social security program and invest on my own, this red herring offered does me no good and makes certain already shaky social security is insoluble. It will be interesting to see what changes to the tax code Bush proposes, but most Americans voting this year were interested only in seeing less taxes, not more talk of them. Capping claims made to legitimate victims of malpractice is possibly the most abhorrent of the new mandate agenda. Telling parents whose daughter dies in surgery because the doctor failed to remove the wayward sponge from her abdomen that they will never receive more then “x” amount of dollars for their daughter’s death destroys the spirit of recompense. Finally, despite conservative posturing, President Bush is more than willing to trample state’s rights in a second attempt for a federal marriage amendment. It is the states’ duty to honor their denizens voting voice concerning such matters. Though states would have to ratify the new amendment if it passed the Senate, the majority rule would force some states to abide by the new addition to the Bill of Rights. This double – edged sword will be bad for both sides of the same-sex marriage issue.

The announcement of Bush’s new aspirations may frustrate some, but not nearly as much as the failure to address other pressing issues brought up by the opposition during the election year.

Healthcare premiums and insurance companies will retain carte blanche, dictating to consumers what they will pay as costs continue to soar without a responsible legislature to keep them in check. Some of those that are unable to retain or afford policies will lose homes, personal transportation, and the benefits of proper healthcare. Cheap prescription drugs from Canada will effectively be stonewalled by those slyly suggesting that America is simply awaiting “FDA approval” for these lifesaving drugs, though American drug makers of medications such as Vioxx are not so closely monitored.

American taxpayer dollars will continue to be usurped by the debacle in Iraq as President Bush requests more “emergency funds” above and beyond the $200 billion already earmarked. The Washington Post reported White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton saying that an additional $70 billion in emergency funding was going to be requested at the start of 2005 for Afghanistan and Iraq. This while we lose 4,000 surface to air missiles valued at $1,000 – $10, 000 apiece. Instead of giving weapons to Iraq like we did in the early 80’s (courtesy of Rummy himself), why don’t we just lose them there, wholesale, instead?

I am optimistic of the next four years, however, as the majority of American voters were most obsessed with one intangible benefit the government will be sure to provide a surplus of – morality. “Morals” were at the top of many an exit poll, and galvanized pro-Bush supporters this year. Now that we know what our priorities are, let’s hold our new officials’ feet to the fire and insist that they follow our moral dogma. Of course, after seeing Janet Jackson’s aging booty on the news a zillion times, the photo souveneirs from Abu Ghraib, and hearing “If you don’t vote for us bad things will happen” from certain individuals running for high office, I’d kind’a like somebody to define what American morality is for me. Please?

Comments
on Nov 08, 2004
No comment from the JU forum, not possible!