The resistance to congressional health care reform gained an expert advocate on Saturday in Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Mr. Elmendorf stated that the current health care reform plan would in fact increase federal spending in the coming years, therefore increasing the federal deficit while providing only a handful of Americans with health insurance.  Democrats have a history of overlooking such claims, drawing on the magnanimous presidencies of FDR and LBJ and their expertise at creating egalitarian federal involvement.  Unfortunately, the climate is different in 2009.

In a time of such an enormous federal deficit, fomented by a political War Hawk and

moral Jerry Falwell (i.e. President Bush), increased federal spending would only exacerbate the already volatile economy.  President Bush, like FDR seven decades ago,

was able to take advantage of an American people terrified after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City.  Between 2001 and 2004, federal non-defense discretionary spending increased 35.7%, a number which towers over President Clinton’s 15.1% increase during his 2-term presidency.  Before 2005, President Bush did not veto a single bill, leaving his partisan Congress to determine spending in a way that would avoid executive challenge.

This is the environment taken over by the 110th Congress in 2006, one that was starkly Democratic.  Ironically, President Bush’s use of federal funding (enormous in both defense and non-defense facets) made him truly a Democrat, masked as a Republican with a guise of Christian morality and conservative ethicality.  This is perhaps the most contributing factor to the makeup of the 110th Congress and the election of Demoract Barack Obama to the White House in November, 2009.

It’s a good thing that our Representatives and Senators are more politically shrewd than those who elect them to office.  Although it may seem like partisan efforts halt further federal spending, especially on an a domestic issue such as health care, the reality is that President Obama’s plan just isn’t that good.  Along with Timothy Geithner, the president has created easily-dismantled federal plans to alleviate the crippled economy; for some reason, health care reform has taken domestic precedence.  Republicans and Democrats alike rue the purported (but ultimately fake) decline of capitalist principle, but they seem to overlook the fact that most of America’s declining industries (e.g. automobile) have come to the government for help.  Is it the government’s responsibility to provide aid to capitalist principle or should competing industries be left to their own devices, something which would cripple the economy further, in the name of capitalism itself?

Health care reform is important, but it has been important since other countries’ systems of health care have proven to be more adequate.  I think there are more important issues at stake, such as our continuing military involvement in Iraq.  Iraq has all but disappeared from the news in the name of domesticity, yet an end to its occupation would free up much of the federal budget and allow President Obama to redirect funding to better uses.

It’s a good thing we’ve gotten over the whole “socialism” thing, which was ridiculous to begin with, because now we can have meaningful and tested debate about health care.  Although it may seem like congressional hold up is due mainly to partisan woes, President Obama’s “team of rivals” and a removed CBO head in Douglas Elmendorf will eventually create the plan we need.  We do not need to know when, as the president continues to set expected dates; the knowledge that it will happen is enough.