Ron Johnson for Senator of Dumbeddownistan (Part I & II)
One of the things that strikes me the most about Ron Johnson is his lack of substance, especially when compared to Russ Feingold's well thought out positions. Analyzing Ron Johnson is really quite easy to do because there is so little there to work with. His website lists 11 "issues" with paragraph length solutions. Man, if life were only that simple. So, here's a quick analysis of Ron Johnson on the issues:
First Issue: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights
-"Ron will be a staunch defender of our right to keep and bear arms.
Ron does not support licensing or registration of firearms, and the people of Wisconsin can trust him not to play politics with our Constitutional rights.
Unlike Russ Feingold, who voted for every anti-gun justice on the Supreme Court today, Ron will only support Supreme Court Justices who correctly interpret the Constitution and protect our right to keep and bear arms."
The Constitution affirms peoples' right to bear arms (whether this is an individual right, or the right of states to maintain militias is another question). No where in the Constitution does it say that guns shall not be licensed or registered. One could make a legitimate argument that the the licensing and registration of guns falls under the interstate commerce clause as well as the 2nd Amendment since guns are usually sold (including across state lines). The state and the public have a legitimate interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and otherwise unstable people. You may have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to unrestricted free speech (like yelling fire in a crowded building), likewise you have a right to bear arms but not an unrestricted right to bear arms. Ron Johnson would be an NRA puppet in the Senate.
As for Russ Feingold voting for "anti-gun" justices. I'd like to know how Ron defines "anti-gun," who are these nefarious anti-gun justices? Has there been any substantial gun control in the last who knows how many years? If anything, the Court is primed to take away the ability of states to regulate guns at all. So, how pray tell is the Court anti-gun? As far as Ron Johnson voting for those who "correctly interpret" the Constitution, how does he interpret it and why is it more correct than the interpretation of someone who studies the Constitution for a profession? Also, Justices are not static and sometimes their interpretation of the Constitution evolves over their lifetime, how will Ron control for this?
Second Issue: Spending
-"Washington has been on a spending spree and now the nation’s debt is a record $13 trillion. Ron believes we reduce spending by reducing the size of government."
Ok, lets cut the deficit by reducing spending. So what is Ron going to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Fact is, there is not a lot of spending that you can cut that won't have a big impact on the economy or on the social safety net. Fact is, the economy tanked, we're still fighting two wars, and President Bush never paid for his tax cuts with spending cuts, and that is why the deficit is the way it is. When you deal with an economic crisis in the size and scope of the Great Recession, the deficit is bound to increase as counter-cyclical spending is necessary to pull the economy out of a death spiral. When the economy is back on firm footing then you can raise the necessary taxes and withdraw the spending needed to backstop the economy in crisis. Hoover tried to ride out the Great Depression without massive government spending, we see how well that worked. In addition, much of the stimulus money went to keep cash strapped states afloat, to prevent the pro-cyclical effects of fiscal contraction at the state level. So, the stimulus likely prevented much misery and an even worse downturn. If economic logic makes no sense to you, don't worry, you can still run for Senate in Wisconsin. No money? Oops! well then you are out of luck.
Third Issue: Health Care
-"Ron will vote to repeal the Health Care Bill and replace it with market-based solutions that will include: portability, malpractice reform, mandate reduction, insurance purchase across state lines, lower costs, and a safety net for those with pre-existing conditions.
The Health Care Bill is a $1 trillion experiment that will lead to higher cost, lower quality health care and rationing by government bureaucrats. A free- market approach to health care reform is critical to ensuring doctors and patients stay in control of the decision-making process. The free market is essential for the development of new drugs, treatments and medical procedures that will save lives and keep our country on the forefront of medical innovation.
The Health Care Bill will further bust an already broken budget. Obama Administration estimates are simply not believable. When Medicare was passed in 1965, the government estimated its cost in 1990 would be $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $111 billion…nearly ten times the original estimate. The estimated cost of the Health Care Bill will not be any more accurate."
Sorry, Ron, your half-measures will do very little to improve access and affordability of health care. What is going to be this safety net for covering people with pre-existing conditions? Require insurers to insure people with PECs? This cannot work without an individual mandate. People with PECs will undoubtably sign up for health insurance, and their conditions will be costly, requiring premium increases, these premium increases will push healthy people out of the insurance pool and premiums will go up further. Unless you "assault" Ron Johnson's freedom with an individual mandate spreading costs amongst everyone, people with PECs will not be covered. If this makes no sense to you, don't worry, Ron doesn't get it either.
Can we finally stop saying we have the "greatest healthcare system in the world?" A system that leaves 40+ million people out, costs more, and gets worse outcomes is not that great. The system might be great for wealthy people like Ron, but it prices too many people out. This IS a form of rationing! Apparently Ron can also do a better job accounting than the entire Office of Management of the Budget (OBM), but can't understand basic insurance principles.
Issue #4: The Economy
As our next US Senator, Ron will work to create a jobs friendly environment by reducing and simplifying taxes and regulations on business. He opposed the Wall Street bailout and the $862 billion stimulus bill. Ron does not believe the federal government is capable of picking ‘winners and losers’ and should not remove capital from the private sector to create more government programs and jobs, which are unsustainable.
Government doesn’t create jobs – the private sector creates jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and represent roughly 98 percent of employers. They are being punished with higher taxes and regulation that stifle new growth, development, and productive investments in our communities.
Russ Feingold has little or no experience creating private sector jobs. His vote for the $862 billion failed stimulus bill is a prime example of a career politician, crafting policy that is ultimately detrimental to America’s economic future. Three days before the passage of the stimulus bill, Feingold issued a press release stating 2.4 million jobs would be created in the first year and 9 million jobs would be created over 3 years. Instead of creating new jobs, our nation has lost over 2.5 million jobs and unemployment remains near double digits.
Specifics Ron, Specifics! So you want to simplify taxes and regulation. Okay, how? I know one way we could simplify taxes, a flat tax or a national sales tax! I bet you any money that is what Johnson will propose if he is elected. Both of these forms of taxation are very regressive (they burden the poor far greater). But, your guess as to what Ron Johnson would do if elected is as good as mine. As far as regulations, does Ron mean he will simplify or eliminate regulations? A lot of regulation is meant to mitigate externalities like pollution or systemic risk to the economy, by removing regulation Mr. Johnson is imposing the costs of these externalities on the public as a whole, while the private sector reaps profits. There may be unnecessary regulations, but you have to identify them for anyone to evaluate whether or not they are good.
Johnson opposed the bailouts and the stimulus bill, so he is for economic armageddon and global economic catastrophe (Feingold was wrong on the bailouts as well). The bank bailouts cost us relatively little compared to the damage that massive bank failures would have done to our economy. When the banks are healthy, it will be time to restore protections like the Glass-Stegall Act, but you can't just pull the rug out from underneath the economy when it is already stumbling. The stimulus bill counteracted massive state budget contractions and created lots of jobs (particularly in construction) that made needed infrastructure repairs. The benefits of the stimulus will be long lasting, and much of it was a tax cut, so Johnson would have opposed a program that cut taxes. Ron says small businesses have faced higher taxes but cites no evidence of this. Ron says small businesses have faced too much regulation, but regulation had been unwound dramatically during the Bush year, with much of the new regulation during the Obama Era a necessary response to prevent further systemic risk to the economy.
Ron does not want the government to pick "winners and losers," but something like the auto industry cannot simply recreate itself overnight if it is allowed to fail. Allowing Detroit to fail would have been devastating to the Midwest (Wisconsin included). The bailout saved jobs and the "Big Three" are making a come back with much higher quality cars. GM and Chrysler didn't really get "bailed out" as much as they underwent a government facilitated restructuring plan that shook up the entire corporate apparatus of both GM and Chrysler. No bailing out GM and Chrysler would probably have taken Ford down with it, and all of the small town dealers that sell their products (one of the few economic contributors to small towns). So, how is Ron Johnson for small business again?
Issue #5: Wisconsin Values
“I’m a pretty traditional guy. I believe in a culture of life, and I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” – Ron Johnson
Ron is pro-life, pro-family, and believes that freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. Ron will take these principles with him to Washington and will stand up to those who would attack these cherished traditional values.
Ron is an avid fisherman and outdoorsman who believes strongly in maintaining a clean and healthy environment. He believes Wisconsin’s sporting traditions and the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment should be protected.
Ron and Jane have been married for 32 years and together they have three children
Most of this is take it or leave it kind of stuff that does not lend itself to non-emotional argument, though I disagree with Ron on all of it. The big red flag is that Ron believes that freedom of religion doesn't meant freedom from religion. What does he mean by that, must everyone follow a religion? Does Ron mean that religion should not be absent from the public square, like school prayer and whatnot? Well, if that is the case then whose religion should the government endorse in the public square? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? Probably not, I'm pretty sure Ron wants the government to endorse Christianity in clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Issue #6: Education
“My work in education has taught me that we are making it difficult for teachers to teach. The education of our children is not something that can be dictated from Washington or Madison. We need to return to local control of education, and bring the dollars we send to Washington back to Wisconsin’s local school districts.” – Ron Johnson
Ron will vote to reduce federal mandates that strip power from states and local school boards, and instead provide for more local control over education.
Ron supports reforming the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to reduce waste in education spending and return more flexibility and decision-making powers to states, local school boards and teachers. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t fit Wisconsin.
Wow! Ron and I agree on something. I think federal mandates for education are not the solution either and local control is important. I want to go with you here Ron, but give me something concrete to hold on to!
This is the first in a series of "Ron Johnson, on the (11) issues....
Quotes are from www.ronjohnsonforsenate.com
Originally posted at www.ragingprogressive.blogspot.com