Harold L. Householder – 4/1/10

This page was last updated on April 1, 2010.

Tea partiers’ silence on Bush tells all; Harold L. Householder; Beaver County Times; April 1, 2010.

The three Householder letters I critiqued are here, here, and here, and one I did not (I was on summer vacation.) was entitled “Obama has right plan on health care” (8/19/09). The first two were Bush-bashing exercises and Mr. Householder is still bashing Mr. Bush.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“There are some questions I would like answered by the Republican Party and these Tea Party people.”

[RWC] As you will see, this letter is mostly a regurgitation of Householder talking points dating back at least to 2004.

I’ll address the alleged central issue of the letter here. Face it, when you consider a politician to be better than the alternative, you don’t try to tear him down. While quite a few of us, mostly conservatives, opposed Bush administration initiatives like the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Part D, illegal alien amnesty, and others, we weren’t about to wipe out Mr. Bush politically in pursuit of perfection. That said, we still voiced our opposition. Sometimes we lost, as in the cases of NCLBA, Part D, and bailouts, and sometimes we won, as with stopping illegal alien amnesty.

“Where were they when President George Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress took power in 2000 and turned our largest budget surplus into record deficits?”

[RWC] Mr. Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, not 2000, and Republicans were the narrow majority party since January 1995. In January 2001, the Senate split was 50-50 with VP Dick Cheney as the tie-breaker. During June 2001, a “Republican” switched to independent (and also switched to the Democrat caucus) giving Democrats a 50-49 majority until January 2003.

In his 10/21/04 letter Mr. Householder wrote, “he [Mr. Bush] took a record budget surplus and turned it into record deficits.” As I wrote at that time, “Wrong again. The budget surplus had already declined in Bill Clinton’s last budget. Therefore, there is no way President Bush could have inherited a “record” budget surplus. The primary reasons for the deficits are the recession that started toward the end of the Clinton administration, 9/11 and its aftereffects, and the insecurity caused by the uncovering of accounting scandals that flourished during the Clinton administration.” Ultimately, though we eventually had record tax revenue (the tax rate cuts) and “discretionary” spending increased at a slower rate than during the Clinton administration, we got to a point where even record tax revenue couldn’t keep pace with total spending.

“Where were they when we were taken into a war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack and had no weapons of mass destruction? This war has cost thousands of American military personnel their lives and more than $1 trillion - and still counting in lives and dollars.”

[RWC] Given this paragraph, shouldn’t Mr. Householder be criticizing Mr. Obama since he is exactly following the Bush administration’s plan for Iraq? Heck, you probably recall VP Joe Biden said in February, “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Let’s also remember Mr. Obama escalated our military involvement in Afghanistan. Both of Mr. Householder’s letters mentioning Mr. Obama offered praise for Mr. Obama but no criticism. We’re getting “do as I say, not as I do” from Mr. Householder.

“Now, the Republicans and Tea Party people are furious about health-care reform. Where were they when Bush and his Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill? This bill was allowed to be literally written by the drug companies at a cost of $750 billion. Its cost was hidden until after the bill passed. For what was spent when compared to the benefit for seniors, it may well be the worst bill ever passed.”

[RWC] Every time Mr. Householder tells this story the number gets bigger. In 2004 it was “$530 billion” over 10 years, in 2006 it was “$700 billion,” and now it’s “$750 billion.” According to a 2008 story in the Arizona Star, “‘While premiums are increasing, projected spending is less than expected,’ said Jeff Nelligan, a Medicare spokesman. ‘The 10-year cost of the drug subsidy program, originally estimated at $634 billion, has been revised to about $395 billion,’ Nelligan said.” $395 billion is about what the CBO estimated in 2003.

According to a 2008 press release, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported, “Based on the bids submitted by Part D plans, CMS estimates that the average monthly premium that beneficiaries will pay for standard Part D coverage in 2009 will be $28. This is about 37% lower than originally projected when the benefit was established in 2003.”

According to The Medical News, “The Congressional Budget Office’s current 10-year estimate for total Part D spending decreased $82 billion compared with its 2008 estimate for the same 10-year period, making a total three-year drop of $520 billion, or 43%, compared with what was estimated in 2006.” 2006 was Part D’s first year of operation. The same story cited a survey claiming “Almost four years after the Medicare Part D prescription drug program went into effect, an overwhelming majority (88%) of America's seniors approve of their individual plan and coverage. In a national survey released this morning by the nonpartisan Medicare Today Coalition, 95% of seniors who used their plan and received prescriptions over the past year also reported that their plan has worked well, while 85% continue to find their monthly premium to be affordable.”

Don’t get me wrong; I opposed Part D in 2003 and I still do because it’s simply more big government and more spending. The point of the above was to illustrate we can’t accept “facts” without doing our own due diligence.

Finally, comparing Part D to Obamacare is like comparing apples and rocks. Part D was “only” about increasing spending (but still bad) while Obamacare far outspends anything we’ve done before and has as its objective a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly.

“This protest against health care is not about saving our country. It is just partisan politics and trying to make sure President Barack Obama doesn’t succeed where the Republicans failed.”

[RWC] I’m sure Mr. Householder would like to believe this. Does Mr. Householder really believe most Americans want a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly, cap-and-tax, illegal alien amnesty, the end of the so-called “Bush” tax rate cuts, spending slush funds like the $850 billion “jobs” bill, et cetera?

Please read my paper entitled “Healthcare.”