Opinion : Was Grassley\'s meeting about \'Mo money\' or things more substantial?

I would have been amused by Bill Keller's outlook, expressed in his recent letter to the editor, if it weren't for the many millions who are under the sway of similar thinking. Let's see if we can do a little work balancing the scales.

First let me say something about discourse.

My friend Nathan and I attended the same meeting with Senator Grassley that Bill did. Nathan and I left the meeting with different opinions. It wasn't hard to do: we came in the door with different opinions. A few days later we made fun of one another and had fun
doing it; we disagree.....we're still friends. I thought that was what our democracy was all about - a civil society engaged in the hard work of governance.

So what was there about Bill's letter I thought was worth exploring in the spirit of civil discourse?

First, let's look at the assertion, "they (our government) create nothing . . . they sell nothing . . . they simply take what they want."

There's a reason the government doesn't sell anything; we don't want them to. The government doesn't own cement factories or paving companies because we think private industry should do that work. Like referees in a sporting event, the government's "product" is an economic "playing field" with agreed upon rules fairly enforced. In sporting events referees aren't allowed to score points but without them scoring in the midsts of chaos would have no meaning. Many people feel the rules have been influenced to favor those who can afford lobbyists and tax attorneys, and the massive shift in the distribution of wealth supports their concern.

When government is more closely involved it's often because there isn't a clear profit motive to produce what we want; clean water, clean air, law enforcement, and national defense come to mind as examples.

"The driving desire on the part of those folks who were obviously members of the Democrat party," writes Bill, "was to approve President Obama’s nominee TOMORROW! Sooner if possible."

The problem is that on the night in question (and at present) there is no nominee to approve. I thought many people, regardless of party affiliation, were concerned about the plan to ignore a presidential appointment for reasons of sheer politics.

Speaking for myself, my expectation is that the president nominate a person of sound legal judgment. If he nominates someone for sheer political reasons I would be deeply disappointed and I would expect Senator Grassley and his committee to block the nomination. But if he submits a nominee committed to the the rule of law, and whose previous judicial history indicates that they are, then I expect the senate to do their job. I felt that to be the consensus.

Bill says one of the dominant themes of the meeting was,“We want mo’ money!!,” particularly as it related to Social Security and drug costs. Not unsuprisingly, I heard something different.

There was an articulate request for a change in the cost of living adjustment for Social Security that I thought sounded reasonable; base the adjustment on the costs of seniors, not the cost of urban workers. Those two groups really do experience different economic realities.

The other point was to question our country's stance of prohibting national negotiation with drug companies. The U.S has the highest cost of medical care on earth and some of that is the result of drug pricing. The recent 5,000% price increase made by Martin Shkreli, before being indicted on charges of fraud, being one case of recent interest. People wanted to know, and rightfully so, why it is that the profits of drug companies take precedence over the well-being of American patients.

Senator Grassley's answer about the breadth of the formulary (the number of covered drugs) was a bit disingenuous. It may be true that the forumlary of single-payer nations lists fewer approved drugs, but many of the excluded drugs are those barely tweaked to garner a longer patent life while being massively marketed direct to the consumer on the nightly news and in magazines.

America has been at war with itself since its birth. We have been of two minds stretching back to the time of Adams and Jefferson, our second and third presidents. Does the best America depend on a strong central government (Adams) or should we keep to a small, agragrian and close-knit society (Jefferson).

Lately I find myself without a political home. I guess I subscribe to a philosophy that says the Right elevated greed and championed moneyed interests to the point where those interests have the power and desire to overwhelm our democractic liberties. Their only goal to further enrich themselves and their heirs. At the same time, the Left has denigrated the role of personal responsibility to the point where the carelessness of individuals may be the death of liberty by a million cuts.

Taken together, economic corruption on the Right and moral corruption on the Left means America is in deep trouble.

I'm not sure how we get out of this situation but I am certain of this - reducing complex issues to simplistic statements and calling people names as our political "leaders" have been doing won't get us where we want to go.