Where in the world is Zack Space? He’s hiding under the bed. He’s seen the town hall meetings on the news, and he’s afraid one of us un-American, swastika-bearing mobsters will get upset with him about ObamaCare. “That’s not my style,” he says. Poor baby. I’m sure he’ll have the courage to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, but facing a constituent is just too much to ask.
To be fair, Space is a key reason that ObamaCare isn’t already the law of the land. He and the other Blue Dog Democrats forced the delay that allows us time to meet with our representatives — but yet he refuses to meet. I see he did talk to The Advocate on the phone about all our “misconceptions,” though.
I identify with Jeff Spridgeon’s letter and the four questions he posed and would like to add some questions for Space as well, since he won’t let me ask him myself.
1. We’ve been told for years that Medicare and Social Security will go broke and bankrupt the country in a couple decades. Along comes ObamaCare to reform the nation’s health care. So far, so good. And we see you Blue Dogs pushing Congress to get the new program to be revenue neutral. Hooray! Wait! Revenue neutral? Doesn’t that mean you’re struggling to keep it from costing any more than it already does? You’re wringing some savings out of the program, increasing taxes and immediately spending it all (and more) on more entitlement programs. Question: How does ObamaCare solve the insolvency problem of Medicare and Social Security? I don’t need a single “misconception” about the details to know you’re making a really bad situation worse.
2. Even if you actually do get to “revenue neutral,” which I doubt, the savings you’re taking out of the program to pay for it are “future savings.” I hear Congress say, “We have to spend now to save later.” Congress has been paying for things with “future savings” for years. How’s that been working out for us? It sounds like my kids: “Pay me now, and I’ll cut the grass later.” Question: Instead of that, how about “Let’s save first and then think about what (or if) we want to spend later?” I don’t need a single “misconception” to know that future savings are like flatulence; important today, gone tomorrow.
3. You say “The bill will not provide benefits or subsidies to illegal immigrants. Period.” You need to talk to your superiors about their “misconceptions.” Obama and Pelosi have both repeatedly said they want to cover all 47 million “Americans” currently without health care. (45.7 million-US Census Bureau, 2007) But — drum roll — more than 10 million of these are illegal immigrants! (Pacific Research Institute) Question: Do you have a misconception, are you parsing words in the Clintonian fashion, or do your superiors have a misconception?
Mr. Space, I’m sorry to be a crimp in your style. I know you have more important things to do than listen to my out-of-control ranting and clear up my numerous “misconceptions.” I know it’s none of my business what you do with my health care. Sorry.
Brennan resides in Newark.
Space needs to answer some questions
Terry Brennan
Where in the world is Zack Space? He’s hiding under the bed. He’s seen the town hall meetings on the news, and he’s afraid one of us un-American, swastika-bearing mobsters will get upset with him about ObamaCare. “That’s not my style,” he says. Poor baby. I’m sure he’ll have the courage to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, but facing a constituent is just too much to ask.
To be fair, Space is a key reason that ObamaCare isn’t already the law of the land. He and the other Blue Dog Democrats forced the delay that allows us time to meet with our representatives — but yet he refuses to meet. I see he did talk to The Advocate on the phone about all our “misconceptions,” though.
I identify with Jeff Spridgeon’s letter and the four questions he posed and would like to add some questions for Space as well, since he won’t let me ask him myself.
1. We’ve been told for years that Medicare and Social Security will go broke and bankrupt the country in a couple decades. Along comes ObamaCare to reform the nation’s health care. So far, so good. And we see you Blue Dogs pushing Congress to get the new program to be revenue neutral. Hooray! Wait! Revenue neutral? Doesn’t that mean you’re struggling to keep it from costing any more than it already does? You’re wringing some savings out of the program, increasing taxes and immediately spending it all (and more) on more entitlement programs. Question: How does ObamaCare solve the insolvency problem of Medicare and Social Security? I don’t need a single “misconception” about the details to know you’re making a really bad situation worse.
2. Even if you actually do get to “revenue neutral,” which I doubt, the savings you’re taking out of the program to pay for it are “future savings.” I hear Congress say, “We have to spend now to save later.” Congress has been paying for things with “future savings” for years. How’s that been working out for us? It sounds like my kids: “Pay me now, and I’ll cut the grass later.” Question: Instead of that, how about “Let’s save first and then think about what (or if) we want to spend later?” I don’t need a single “misconception” to know that future savings are like flatulence; important today, gone tomorrow.
3. You say “The bill will not provide benefits or subsidies to illegal immigrants. Period.” You need to talk to your superiors about their “misconceptions.” Obama and Pelosi have both repeatedly said they want to cover all 47 million “Americans” currently without health care. (45.7 million-US Census Bureau, 2007) But — drum roll — more than 10 million of these are illegal immigrants! (Pacific Research Institute) Question: Do you have a misconception, are you parsing words in the Clintonian fashion, or do your superiors have a misconception?
Mr. Space, I’m sorry to be a crimp in your style. I know you have more important things to do than listen to my out-of-control ranting and clear up my numerous “misconceptions.” I know it’s none of my business what you do with my health care. Sorry.
Brennan resides in Newark.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.