Government shutdown: political theater highlighting Obama’s arrogance

Valley Forum


By Doug Nickle

When you cut through all the noise, the government shutdown is a joke on the American people. It is nothing more than political theater and highlights the arrogance and lack of leadership of the Obama administration.

In spite of all their weaknesses, Republicans are being unfairly blamed by the liberal media for doing their job. Since we live in a constitutional democracy, as opposed to Obama’s dictatorial interpretation, the House Republicans have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to their constituents who are opposed to the economic calamity that is ObamaCare.

Further, the multiple individual bills presented by the Republican House illustrate that the legislature can fund individual programs rather than huge, pork-laden bills. So instead of the Democrat Senate refusing to fund Veterans Affairs, national parks, and child cancer research, while attacking Christian chaplains in the military, we would be better served if they agreed to fund such individual programs while continuing the debate on ObamaCare.

Obama’s failings during this process are flagrant; saying he “will not negotiate with Republicans” is tantamount to saying he will not do his job, and that he doesn’t have to. Selectively closing national parks and monuments for political gain rather than necessity is pathetic, petty and despotic. Presiding over Democrat “leadership” like Reid and Pelosi, who call conservatives and Republicans “arsonists,” “anarchists” and “terrorists,” demonstrates that Obama and Democrat leaders are ego-driven, wannabe autocrats. And the liberal mainstream media continues in its self-appointed role as the fourth branch of government, acting as propagandists for their dear leader.

We, the American people, get what we deserve. We send these people to Washington, D.C., on our behalf. If those who voted for Obama truly want a tyrannical government that is above the constitutional laws it is sworn to uphold, then they have been rewarded.

Or, perhaps it’s time for those once filled with “hope and change” to take a clear look at what is really happening. And perhaps it’s time for quiet conservatives, who’ve sat idly by, to finally stand up for something.

The world is run by those who show up.

• • •

  Doug Nickle is a Sonoma Valley resident and a past member of the board of the Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Alliance.


  • Tom Sokolowski

    Sorry Doug, but in case you haven’t heard, Obamacare was passed by Congress, judged to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and is now law of the land. Where’s the “dictatorial” part?

    You’re right about the House Republicans having a “moral, ethical and legal obligation,” but the obligation is not to destroy America; which is what they seem to be doing right now.

    RomneyCare is law….(sorry, I meant Obamacare, can’t tell the difference), and it allows millions
    of Americans to purchase affordable health care. Don’t forget Doug, Obamacare was originally a
    conservative idea to create personal responsibility for one’s healthcare by paying one’s own way, ending the free ride of the freeloaders who have been getting their health care from the ER, which you and me both pay for in our taxes.

    • Phineas Worthington

      Tom, you echo what I hear from many strident democrat progressives, that the ACA does not go far enough, that somehow the ACA is a democratic capitulation to the republican plan. The longer term goal for many is an incremental path toward single payer, a full government takeover of the medical industry. Sadly for me, neither party can claim to be the guardians of free markets in medicine.

      • Tom Sokolowski

        You got me ….Obamacare was originally a Republican Heritage Foundation idea to promote self reliance and get rid of the slackers who got free medical care from the ER. While Obamacare’s a free gift to insurance companies giving them millions of new customers, its still way better than what we had before.

        I would much prefer a single payer health care system like most of the rest of the modern industrialized world has. A single payer healthcare systems spreads the cost, thus lowering the price. Also, our businesses are at a disadvantage in the global market because they have to factor in health care coverage costs that other countries do not. A single payer health care system would reduce costs to them also.

        Free markets in medicine? They have that already Phineas, but you have to go to third world countries to get it. Be my guest.

        • Phineas Worthington

          I went to Ukraine, they had single payer free medicine. And they said,”The operation is free, but the anesthesia will cost you your life savings!” All medicines were expired. Hospitals were dingy dark places where you never wanted to go, especially in an emergency. I had an acquaintance who gashed his head and they stitched him up like a football hair and all. Four men held him down cause they had no pain killer. They pull teeth instead of fill them. If that is what you want, it is already available, but please reconsider bringing that here so your posterity don’t curse you.

          • Chris Scott

            What’s your point?

  • Phineas Worthington

    I enjoyed reading your letter very much Mr. Nickle, thanks for showing up!

  • Fred Allebach

    One thing is conspicuously absent from the discussion. The primary reason for Obamacare in the first place is to control sky-rocketing insurance prices. The purpose of the ACA is to keep prices affordable and increase access (clearly bad policy choices eh?). In all the hot air I don’t hear one Republican plan to address the health care mess this country has. Their approach here is similar to their other science-denying tactics, “there is no problem”. If all those lazy, takers would just get up earlier in the morning then everything would fix itself! Where are any Republican plans to address health care? To listen to them talk you’d think insurance companies were like benign angels. When I think of Republican policy in general, all they are is against everything. They don’t seem to be for anything other than to entirely dismantle the New Deal and any gains from the civil rights movement. Every dog for himself and Social Darwinism is the goal. Equality is not a value worth discussing. Why are they then not agitating to repeal mandatory automobile insurance? Isn’t it is great idea for lots of people to choose no insurance so when you get in an accident, no one pays?

    • Phineas Worthington

      Most people simply don’t understand what insurance is anymore.

      People will make their health spending decisions very differently spending someone the money of someone else than if they spend their own money.

      • Fred Allebach

        In the old days, If someone decided not to carry auto insurance and you were hit by them, they payed nothing, unless you had to bear the cost of suing them. Individuals had to carry extra insurance to provide for the possibility of being hit by someone with no insurance, thereby raising your rates. People who decided not to carry raised rates overall, the same as with health care today. To have a mandatory pool, as with auto insurance, lowers rates and makes people pay for their own driving behavior; they can’t foist that cost on someone else in the name of freedom. People who don’t carry are deciding to spend your money because you get higher rates as a result. People who don’t carry claim they are not part of the community, that is their choice. But their choice raise my rates, i.e. “harm”. Mandatory insurance reverses the equation, everyone has to spend their own money so you don’t have to carry the ones who are choosing to spend your money for you (by not carrying) in the form of higher rates. Every dog for himself just does not work as a viable insurance principle. The whole point is to get costs down. How will the Right bring costs down?

        • Phineas Worthington

          I can only speak for myself, not “the right.”

          Private insurance, as much as we love to hate it, has an actual, financial incentive to keep costs down. When I was growing up, the health system worked much better, that is a fact.

          Government insurance, or insurance markets that are totally regulated by coercive laws mandating unlimited coverage, don’t keep costs down. Both serve to take away any effective limits on coverage and thereby costs.

          In my own experience, the existing Medicare policy of virtually unlimited end-of-life care serves to dramatically prolong suffering and the dying process rather than provide health again. Its an absolute tragedy to watch a loved one who is terrified of dying, like all of us are, do anything, any procedure, any operation, anything to live when there is no hope left.

          And I think adding inter-generational wealth transfers does nothing but inject a systemic injustice to the mix to a life that is already hard enough.

  • j_b_spence

    ObamaCare is a revolutionary attempt by one party (remember only democrats voted for it when they had a majority in the house and senate in 2009-10) to solve a very difficult problem. It’s too bad that health care legislation wasn’t crafted by consensus and forethought.

    We’re in a real mess – health care costs will go up, up, up. The govt now has the ability to infringe on every part of our lives (bank accounts, health records, personal data). The democrats know this and have put off implementation until after the elections in 2014 because of the inevitable negative reactions.

    You heard it here first – 2016 is when states start having to pick up the tab for this turkey. What do you think that’s going to do to CA and our economy?

    • Phineas Worthington

      All good points. The genius of the design is that the negative fallout will come when Obama is gone as president exposing the fallacy that voting is a genuine means of self-correction in law and government.

  • Fred Allebach

    I still hear no other plans for what to do about unaffordable health care and insurance in the USA. For an allegory, let’s say that a boat is sinking and some people have a plan to save the ship, plus the people on it. Other people say no to the plan and also, they have no other plan to offer. In addition, they say there is no problem, the boat is not sinking. Well, these people are unreliable partners, unwilling to participate in reality even when it’s about to bite them in the glass. When people occupy the same physical space, with serious mutual issues to resolve, but live on different planets in their heads, Houston, we have a problem. It seems to me that some folks just don’t want to be members of society and fulfill any social obligations and responsibilities, because there are no social obligations or responsibilities, every dog for himself is the way they want it.

    • Phineas Worthington

      Unlimited care and lower costs cannot coexist.