Buy Movies & Books |Subscribe|Bookmark|Follow Us

My Account|About Us|Contact Us|Staff|Place an Ad
Home > Columnists >
July 09, 2012

McConnell: GOP not a party of 'no'

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (UPI/Kevin Dietsch)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Republicans in the U.S. Senate are not going to cooperate with the Democratic majority just for the sake of cooperating, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

McConnell, R-Ky., said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday President Obama and the Democrats were bemoaning a seemingly uncooperative GOP minority that refused to rubber-stamp their agenda.

"The primary problem is the president would like for us to keep doing more of what he was able to do the first two years when he had total control of Congress," said McConnell. "The American people have looked at the results of that. It clearly has not worked."

McConnell denied there was an election-year Iron Curtain on Capitol Hill. He told CNN he meets regularly with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and cited the recent passage of the Transportation Bill as an example of bipartisan cooperation.

"We were addressing an issue that we had broad agreement on, that transportation is important to our economy," McConnell said. "But, the way we are going to get the private sector going again is to change the way the government is treating the private sector."

Comments :


This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen a paioticll party do. I'm not really surprised that they are doubling down on the culture war issues, because if the economy continues to improve, that's all they'll have to run on, but the Blunt Amendment is a serious departure from the party's intended message.It's one thing to want to ban birth control; it's another to push for a company's right to determine what health care you can and can't have access to for any moral reasons whatsoever.The only moral imperative most companies recognize is padding the bottom line. That being the case, I would argue that more companies are likely to use the Blunt Amendment to slash coverage for pre-natal care, childbirth, and maternity leave than they are to eliminate it for birth control. Abortion will always be cheaper than paying for all of that. There are still a lot of older women out there who remember the days when you could be fired from a job for getting pregnant or having a baby. At one point, stewardesses could be fired for even getting married. All a company will need to do under the Blunt Amendment to order a woman to have an abortion is make a moral case that a woman has had too many children already (and for certain races, one is probably too many), or that she will not be able to juggle motherhood and her job.I can see how some conservatives would be cheering this, but it isn't just inconsistent with the pro-life arguments that are supposedly justifying it, but it is actually fundamentally opposed to them. The Blunt Amendment might be more accurately called the Have an abortion or be fired law.I suppose the GOP is thinking that the culture war stuff is good for getting the pro-lifers out to the ballot box, but this the worst example of poor message disclipline I've ever seen. Even fairly committed Republicans won't be able to avoid hearing about the bill's other consequences before long. The GOP has basically found a way to highlight the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice, something liberals have never entirely succeeded at, and they've produced a bill that eradicates a woman's right to choose without protecting the unborn at all. It's a failure on every level.


Chris the employee can just not use the befenit, of course, but part of the reason we're arguing about this is that the administration wants certain preventive medical things covered so that people will take advantage of the befenit and get preventive care that will (in theory) reduce the need for more medical care down the road. Higher use of birth control correlates to fewer pregnancies, especially unwanted ones. So this saves money for everyone.Now, let's think about how insurance is supposed to work. Insurance works by pooling risk. Ideally everybody old, young, sick, healthy, men, women all get into the same pool. You want as many healthy people as possible in the pool, because they take out less money than they put in. The more young and healthy people in the pool, the lower the premiums for everybody. Conversely, if only sick people bought insurance, the premiums would be brutally expensive because everyone in the pool would be taking a lot of money out.If the only people who purchase maternity insurance are people who expect to have a baby, there wouldn't be maternity insurance. So maybe eliminating maternity befenits saved you a few bucks, but if everyone did that, the befenit would be too expensive for people who do need it. For years some on the Right have argued that health insurance would be less expensive if healthy and sick people were in separate pools. Yes, healthy people would pay lower premiums, but then sick people would pay higher premiums. Sorry, that does not sound like a solution. It's just shifting cost around.One of the things the President is trying to do through the Affordable Care Act is to get broad medical coverage for as many people as possible. This should make the overall health care system less expensive for a lot of reasons I don't have time to explain. Maybe somebody could link to something that explains it. But the point is that it doesn't just shift cost around; it makes the whole system less expensive overall.

Your Name:
A value is required.

Comment: A value is required.

Please Enter Security Code:
security code

Top Movies & Books
Local & State:

HIFF Celebrates Third and Possibly Final Year in Middletown

Boys and Girls Club of Wayne

New Scandals Show Obama’s Contempt for the Constitution

The Wayne Public Library

Vila Verde