With the election just days away, the only question facing Kansas voters will be what to wear to the polls. Will the mild weather promised for the end of the week hold until Tuesday next? Or will it be wise to wear a coat and have an umbrella handy? THERE HAS BEEN a role reversal in the past four years. The Democrats have become the cautious party. The Republicans urge radical change. The Democrats are now the stand-patters, a term they once used against Republicans. The Democrats want to go a step at a time toward economic recovery, are bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, have refused to engage U.S. military forces in Syria and keep pushing for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear threat.
Doubt doesn’t extend to the outcome of the national races in our deep red state. Mitt Romney will carry Kansas going away. All of the state’s Republican members of Congress will win re-election and be able to tell the rest of the nation they have a mandate, signed, sealed and delivered, to vote exactly as the leadership tells them to, as they have been doing with absolute fidelity these past two years.
There will be a few contrarians, I among them.
President Barack Obama should be elected in this very close contest because his policies, and those of his party, are the safest and best for the nation.
Four years ago it could be said that voting for Obama was taking a chance on sharp changes in public policy that might put the nation at risk. This time around that shoe fits the Republican foot.
The Romney/Ryan budget would make dramatic changes in U.S. military policy, in Medicare and in Medicaid.
Mitt Romney has promised to double the size of the U.S. Navy and spend an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years to reach that goal and to beef up the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
He has endorsed Ryan’s radical plan to remake both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare would no longer pay health care bills for seniors but would, instead, allocate each recipient a given amount each year with which to buy insurance. If the insurance didn’t cover the bills, the senior would pick up the tab. This would limit the amount of money the government would spend on health care for those of retirement age — by limiting the amount of health care they would receive.
Health care for those with low incomes would be limited in a different way. The states would receive a block grant based on population and other factors with which to fund their Medicaid programs. When the money ran out, health services to the poor would be cut back or the states would make up the difference. (Good luck in states like Kansas.)
Now, let’s look at the $2 trillion in additional defense spending a little deeper. Mr. Romney has also promised to cut income taxes across the board by 20 percent, which would reduce federal income by an estimated $5 trillion over the next decade. Five plus two equals $7 trillion in additional deficits unless spending were cut by that much or tax revenues were increased, as he said they would be, by eliminating loopholes, deductions and exemptions.
Which loopholes? That’s for him to know and you to find out — after the election.
The fact is, as every independent analyst agrees, the math doesn’t work — and if the promises are kept, they would result in massive increases in deficit spending and a ballooning national debt. But would Congress agree to slash taxes and increase military spending just because of political promises? Republican Congresses did exactly that a few short years ago.
The Democrats passed legislation to regulate Wall Street to prevent another financial meltdown and passed the Affordable Health Care Act to extend coverage to the 50 million Americans without health insurance and move toward health care cost containment.
The Republicans want to repeal both of those initiatives, insisting that Wall Street can better police itself and choosing to ignore the fact that our health care system is broken.
Giving Barack Obama a second term and sending a few more Democrats to Congress would keep our republic moving slowly ahead in a predictable direction. It would be the conservative thing for the voters to do.
— Emerson Lynn, jr
