I just happened to catch this Tuesday morning, and thought it raised some interesting questions on the issue of health care reform:

So, why isn’t this man helping to shape policy? He sounds pretty smart to me.

By now, I am sure many of you have seen footage of the Town Hall with Sen. Specter and Secretary Kathleen Sebellius. And while the following video begins with some of that footage, the bigger issue deals with how health care reform would affect veterans and their families. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) is on the House Armed Services Committee, and addresses this issue:

Feel free to take issue with some of his statements. One that jumped out at me was his comment about the “Cash for Clunkers” program. There have been SO many issues raised about that, someby me, including this: Congress expected the funds to last for four months, and they lasted for four days. This was a $1 Billion dollar program. If they failed to project how quickly the funds would run out for that, why should we trust they will do better with a FAR more expansive program in scope and scale, not to mention COST, like Health care reform?

Here’s the short hand: if they can’t predict how quickly $1 billion will go, how can they accurately predict how over $1 TRILLION will go?

Back to the veterans for just a moment. Good of Rep. Cummings to discuss this issue with his constituents who are veterans. Here is one veteran who has his own take on this issue (H/t to Logistics Monster for this video):

In case you are wondering what Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says, here it is:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch; Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is good to see with what the Congress is officially charged under the Constitution that governs this land. For me, at least, it helps to put things into perspective. Kind of like the soldier who spoke up did, cutting through a whole bunch of rhetoric. I think our politicians could learn a lesson from him on that score, too – speak clearly, speak plainly, and base ALL of your decisions with the Constitution as a road map, rather than as a stumbling block.

Better yet, maybe they should all wear bracelets like, “WWJMD?” = “What Would James Madison Do?” Or, “WWJD?” = “What Would Jefferson Do?” Just a thought…

Nor am I, after the events of this last year, one to tout party loyalty.

But I can’t help thinking that it is a huge plus for all Pennsylvanians to have more than one Democratic party choice. Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), who is conducting an exploratory tour of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, has now officially announced he is running for Pennsylvania’s Senate seat. His opponent for the Democratic primary will be the current five term Senator from Pennsylvania, the former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat, Arlen Specter.

___________
From The Ed Show July 9:

__________

So what do you think?

Are these good Democrats?

And more importantly, are these good choices for Pennsylvania – and for our Nation?

Arlen Specter, you’re SEVENTY-NINE YEARS OLD. What in the hell business do you have switching parties and expecting anything, especially retaining your seniority?

What did Barack Obama and Joe Biden promise you? And you believed them? What a FOOL you are. Obama and Biden will screw with anybody to get that 60th vote. Even toss aside the Democrats’ best chance to win that Pennsylvania senate seat: Joe Sestak.

Here’s more Sestak — READY TO FIGHT:

UPDATE: Check out Politico’s “Meltdown: Specter stands alone.” How amusing:

Arlen Specter infuriated Senate Republicans when he bolted from their party last week. Now he’s alienated just about everybody in the Senate Democratic caucus, too.

Since declaring himself a Democrat last Tuesday, Specter has defied Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House on virtually everything that’s come down the pike: the budget, mortgage reform, the Al Franken-Norm Coleman race, even President Barack Obama’s appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

All while quibbling over whether he said he’d be a “loyal Democrat” — and insisting that he had an “entitlement” to transfer his Senate seniority from one side of the aisle to the other.

The blowback came Tuesday night: On a voice vote, the Senate voted to strip Specter of his 29 years of seniority, effectively transforming him in a blink-and-you-missed-it-moment from one of the most senior senators in the body to a lowly freshman on most committees.

“There were concerns about his actions,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, which sets committee assignments. …

Check out more blog reactions to this story at Memeorandum.com.

Hanging on like a dog with a rag in its mouth, even unto teeth falling out, the completely inflexible Republican Party continues to screw itself.

The ever-homophobic FOX, choosing the title Arlen Specter Comes Out of the Closet to cover the story, simply could not resist bashing two birds with one endearing title stone.

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

So as Mr. Specter himself explains, his decision is about wanting to get reelected. I don’t doubt he has many worthwhile contributions he would still like to make. But as an independent, who has voted for Republicans as well as Democrats over the years, I have both admired Mr. Specter for many of his independent votes and stances, and decried his adherence to party loyalty.

For me, a more impressive time for Arlen Specter to make his principled stance forsaking the Republican party would have been when Bush and the Republican party were in power and traveling down so many avenues – Iraq, torture, FISA, financially starving much needed government agencies, manipulating government data – that I and many Americans found reprehensible.

Now after so many years, it seems like just another confirmation that our political parties have merged into one big corporate party with only the fringe Democrats pulling hard left and fringe Republicans pulling hard right.

Personally, I’m weary of the constant gamesmanship of politics. I’m frustrated by the unending election focus. I’m tired of feeling like the helpless passenger locked in the back seat and forced to watch two drunk drivers fighting to take control over the steering wheel. In the end, we are still trapped in the same car speeding down the same road and facing the same ditches and oncoming traffic hazard, while in the hands of an impaired driver.

Third party? Term limits? There has got to be a way for the american people to stop being crash test dummies for both political parties.

Ben Smith of Politico provides a great perspective on Specter once proposed limiting effect of party switches when Jim Jeffers defected in 2001.

____________________

And so while Mr. Specter’s party affiliation goes full circle – he originally was a democrat.

____________________

MSNBC goes around the usual political analysis circle.

____________________

From The John Batchelor Show blog.