published Monday, December 30th, 2013

Smith: Elections ahead: The year Obama created

By Robin Smith

Even years have special meaning in the world of politics — they’re election years!

Next year, there will be a permeating distrust that’s been building over broken promises to “get things done” and to “get our house in order.” There is mounting pressure to stop “kicking the can down the road” in facing some of our problems on a national, state, and local level.

Results of the 2014 elections will be shaped by a huge miscalculation by President Barack Obama.

President Obama is best when campaigning, giving speeches and raising money where charisma and charm fuel his popularity.

But a brick wall of reality was ignored in applying the “transformative” philosophy of Saul Alinsky that many of his mentors with the implementation of Obamacare, his “signature issue.”

Creating a narrative that each insured American was frustrated with their own healthcare coverage, Obama and the Democrats pushed the legislation through with no Republican votes and blocked waves of legislation offered by the GOP to correct anticipated problems, like keeping your existing plan after the launch of Obamacare.

The Obamacare ever-changing tale fits the model of Alinsky in that “[An organizer] does not have a fixed truth, truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

Throughout 2009 and 2010, health care was noted to be in a state of crisis and reform was in the “national interest.” The “skyrocketing costs” had to be brought under control.

The story line expanded to include “health care as a right” casting the newly-signed law as the answer to provide unlimited health care access.

News accounts added “deficit reduction” to the script as the national headlines magnified budget talks and the malignant growth of spending by Obama and the “progressive” left.

Alinsky’s advice was the Democrats playbook: Get “the people in the community” to “feel so frustrated, so defeated… of the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.” In addressing the monumental task of health-care reform, an “organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce…” and “fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame of fight.”

As this “crisis” was crafted to transform health-care, the public was focused on their family budgets, their own loss of purchasing power with inflation, and the lack of jobs.

Then, Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010 surrounded by his lieutenants of lies, just as a Gallup analysis showed that 69% ranked their health insurance as “excellent or good” with that number trending up to 72% in Nov. 2012.

By June 2010 it was known that the Obama Administration was aware that 93 million Americans would not be able to keep their existing health care plans in a “massive disruption of the private insurance market” according to the Federal Register. Millions of cancellations have forced Americans into plans with higher premiums and deductibles creating the expected chaos.

This disruption is one that will be a moniker worn by each Democrat on the 2014 election ballot reminding every voter of the association with the “transformative” Barack Obama.

Democrats have restructured the power of politics to create a crisis in an attempt to offer solutions.

Republicans’ 2014 winning strategy must offer a stark contrast of solving problems and then stepping out of the way.

Robin Smith served as chairwoman of the Tennessee Republican Party, 2007 to 2009. She is a partner at the SmithWaterhouse Strategies business development and strategic planning firm and serves on Tennessee’s Economic Council on Women.

18
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Is this Robin Red Coat's defense of the status quo anti? Medical care has been out of control for many years with President after President afraid to tackle the issue. Obama risked his political capital to try. For that he deserves credit.

Miss Red Robin should try her hand at better health care solutions instead of political attacks on a health care plan that is full of compromises made to accommodate Republican interests.

How low does America have to fall before the political parties begin to work for the good of country instead of for political advantage?

December 30, 2013 at 12:22 a.m.
yddem said...

Typo in your post, nuc, should be s q ante. Robin is a Liz Cheney wannabe. Hope her dad is not as heartless as ole Dick.

December 30, 2013 at 9:28 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Robin Smith, in that Gallup analysis you mention I wonder how many of the 45 million Americans without health insurance rated their insurance as "excellent or good?" You say that "Democrats have restructured the power of politics to CREATE A CRISIS in an attempt to offer solutions," as if everything was hunky-dory with our "excellent" health care system until Obama came along and then this dirty stinkin' socialistic community organizer had to go and stir things up with his manufactured "crisis" about our nation's health care. That dastardly, vile Alinsky-worshiping Kenyan Muslim Communist! Off with his head!

I realize that in the minds of you fanatically conservative protectors of the status quo there is no crisis as long as you have yours, whether it be health insurance, good jobs, a nice house in the 'burbs, or stuffed refrigerators, but most rational and objective people who are able to see beyond their own noses have been aware that America's health care system has been in need of fixing for a long time now. While you folks with your "excellent" health care and good jobs that were somehow untouched by the Great Recession can only see your America as some Norman Rockwell painting, the fact is that this country has become a banana republic, in some ways even a dystopia, for millions of people; and regarding our health care system in particular, we have more citizens without access to it than any other developed nation on earth, and ours is the most costly to maintain. That is indeed a CRISIS, Mrs. Smith, whether you in your fuzzy warm blanket of snootiness and upper-middle-class privilege dare to acknowledge it or not.

What Obama brought to the table was a plan so conservative in concept that it could have easily been put together by, well, conservatives. Oh wait...it WAS originally put together by conservatives...even that hated mandate! But since it has Obama's signature attached to it Republicans have been doing their damnedest to turn all of America against it with their lies about how "socialistic" it is and how unfair to you privileged people with your "excellent" health care.

It is a flawed system and will most certainly need some major tweaking but at least he tried to do something that no Republican has dared to do. And to this day, Republicans have still not offered up any alternatives to Obamacare whatsoever. All they, and people like you, have done is throw hissy-fits about how evil Obama is for daring to ruffle the feathers of you elitist sanctimonious twits.

December 30, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
soakya said...

In the past few days on this forum we have seen progressives who preach it is the governments responsibility to help the poor but when they came face to face with an actual need, a need they could have met by taking a little cash out of their own pocket or help paying for some training to develop some skills neither met that need because as one of them said, she didn't ask for it. so when you, rickyroo and alprova practice what you preach then maybe your words will carry a little more weight instead of hot air. until then one of you is a lying blowhard and the other one is just a blowhard.

December 30, 2013 at 1:31 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Idiot is on overused word but when it fits someone as perfectly as it does you it's hard to refrain from using it. You keep harping about how it is up to the individual to hand over an unlimited stream of cash to whoever is in need, whether it be for food or hospital bills or job training or whatever else. You don't even know me, you dumb-ass. You don't have a clue to what extent I give. The fact is that I have always been generous when it comes to helping people in need - not only on a personal level but I have various charities that I have always donated to as well. But unless one is abundantly rich, there is a limit to how much a person can give. No amount of individual giving, at least from the ranks of other middle class/working class people, is ever going to be enough to feed the hungry or pay for someone's education or pay the bills of jobless people, or pay the hospital bills of the uninsured.

If you want to keep preaching your message of individual giving as the cure-all for what ails us, then go preach it to the ultra-rich, the one percenters. There is enough collective wealth among them to wipe out poverty and hunger completely, to pay for every child's education, and to pay for health insurance for every man, woman, and child in America. Many people of lesser wealth give more - at least proportionally, as a percentage of income - than some of the ultra-wealthy. The fact that you keep preaching your simplistic message (of individual giving) to people of limited income who are oftentimes themselves struggling to make ends meet only shows how pathetically feeble-minded you are.

December 30, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
soakya said...

but there is no limit to how much one can give thru taxes? how does that work? according to you individuals don't have the money to do it their self's but government can meet the needs by taking the tax dollars from individuals.

I understand you know very little about how the economy works but what do you not understand about how government gets its money? individuals giving on their own can meet the needs better and at a more efficient cost than any government can. if you want people to give even more move the charitable deduction off the Schedule A to the front of the 1040 and remove the 30-50% limit on the amount people can deduct from their adjusted gross income and the individuals will meet the needs at a lower cost than government ever dreamed about.

December 30, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
soakya said...

one more thing for you ricky. lets get rid of all social welfare programs but lets expand the earned income credit to cover all the benefits covered thru the programs. My 2 ideals alone will do more for the poor than anything you have ever suggested while at the same time reducing the size of government and taxes.

this is not absolute freedom but it is far more freedom than the bondage you advocate for with an ever increasing size of centralized government that controls or dictates your every move and an ever increasing tax burden.

December 30, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
gypsylady said...

Clue for you Ms. Smith. We Americans knew healthcare in this country was a huge problem. We didn't need anyone to tell us that it was and we certainly don't need you to try to pretend that everything was peachy. Ask around to some of your Republican friends. Ask if they're getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. Ask if they're relieved that $1,000,000 cap is gone. Why dont'cha give your previous opponent a call and see if he'll admit that he's got his grown son on his insurance, now that the cut off age has been raised to 26.

And soaky, every once in awhile you make a good point. Today isn't one of those days. Instead of telling people they don't know anything, why don't you actually read, comprehend and research? You know, build your cred a little bit.

December 30, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Every day more independently employed professional people show up who obtained ACA coverage for ⅓ what they were paying before, it works, read it and weep.

As for Ms. Smith, you just have to look at an eob compared to someone without health insurance to see how screwed up the system was/is, or compare the cost of identical procedures at various medical centers around the country.

And soakya you miss the main message, it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the destitute. In the USA the government is "we the people."

December 30, 2013 at 8:45 p.m.
soakya said...

And soakya you miss the main message, it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the destitute-IQM

You need the government to force you to do this? I don't think so. As I pointed out above this can be done at far lower cost with a couple of simple adjustments to the tax code. the 2 ideals I mentioned above will do more to help the poor than all the alprova's and rickyroo's would ever do. Remember alprova came face to face with an actual need and did nothing to meet that need because she didn't ask for help.

December 30, 2013 at 11:08 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

So far the evidence shows you cannot rely on JohnQPublic to spare a dime for someone disadvantaged

December 30, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

In other words, the rich usually have a sense of entitlement, but not all

December 30, 2013 at 11:30 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

And if you are in the lower income bracket you give proportionately more of your assets to help than higher brackets.

December 30, 2013 at 11:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

rickaroo said....

If you want to keep preaching your message of individual giving as the cure-all for what ails us, then go preach it to the ultra-rich, the one percenters. There is enough collective wealth among them to wipe out poverty and hunger completely, to pay for every child's education, and to pay for health insurance for every man, woman, and child in America.


This perception and belief is totally wrong...Confiscate all the wealth of the 1% and it would not fund the government very long. But, they would become equally impoverished along with those that demand the government support them. This is not a knock against Obama care or charitable contributions but balancing the budget and providing for everyone as proposed by some will require an unprecedented increase in government revenue with everyone paying more taxes.

December 31, 2013 at 7:30 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

I am not saying that it would fund the government indefinitely. Of course it wouldn't. But my point is that even if all the wealth of the super-rich would not be enough to eliminate poverty or hunger or take care of the uninsured, then how is soakya's idea of charitable giving from the rank-and-file middle class and working class people, many of whom are struggling financially themselves, going to solve those problems? It's too absurd to even contemplate.

Certainly charitable giving is a good thing and it can help, but we have a means of eradicating poverty and hunger through sensible economic policies. We can create a society in which people are more self-sufficient and that is what we should strive for, through concerted and sensible government initiatives, not just accepting poverty as the status quo and then depending on individual giving to ease the suffering of the have-nots.

December 31, 2013 at 12:57 p.m.
schizka said...

soakya said... In the past few days on this forum we have seen progressives who preach it is the governments responsibility to help the poor but when they came face to face with an actual need, a need they could have met by taking a little cash out of their own pocket

Many needs are far beyond the scope of just handing out a little cash. Your approach has already been tested, and it failed miserably.

It was the federal government that had to create jobs for returning veterans of World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam etc., because the private sector didn't want to hire them. Having returned from war, the private sector feared they were ticking time bombs. When the private sector finally started to hire vets, it wasn't for their love and respect for veterans serving their country and keeping fellow Americans safe, it was because the federal government had to offer them all kinds of incentives, tax breaks, federal dollars and federal contracts to the private sector. The same for hiring women and minorities, specifically blacks. The federal government again had to step in beg, plead and offer federal funds and contracts. Without federal help, many of your big businesses and that 1% wealthy would have never gotten their businesses off the ground. One of the right wingers loudest mouth pieces bashing the federal government on handouts during the last election cycle was one of the government's biggest recipients of federal tax dollars and contracts with the federal government.

Sher Valenzuela, who went on attack against President Obama during the last election cycle with her We Built It speech in 2012 forgot to mention that her business got its boost from federal loans where she received millions of dollars and contracts to do work for the federal government.

My bet is, if some savvy investigative reporter dig just a little into the background of some of these politicians on the attack about federal programs, they'll find they too at some point received federal dollars and likely still do. Just like that wealthy Tennessee pig farmer politicians. I forget his name.

December 31, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
LibDem said...

soakya, You are suggesting using the federal tax code to subsidize charitable giving (which already occurs, of course). I would argue that this is a convoluted and inefficient program for funding charitable functions through the federal government. Why not be a little more direct?

Additionally, (in the interest of full disclosure I am a secular humanist) I don't want my taxes subsidizing massages for Rev. Haggard or silk suits for Rev. Graham or Crystal Cathedrals or media centers. I recognize that religious organizations perform some profoundly beneficial functions for people in difficult situations, but I fear there is some loss to less than charitable expenses.

January 1, 2014 at 10:41 a.m.
soakya said...

Libdem,

how is deducting chartable contributions using the federal government besides thru taking the deduction on form 1040 instead of schedule A? Donations are already deductible on schedule a, but you could incentives more giving simply by moving the charitable deduction to the front of 1040 as an adjustment. Some people don't qualify for schedule a because all their deductions on schedule a is less than their standard deduction. the federal government is not handling the contributions. they are not directing where the contributions go. do you believe the government is doing a good job now handling the welfare programs?

how would your taxes be subsidizing what someone else contributes? Do you not think if the earned income credit was expanded to cover all social welfare programs and this deduction moved to the front of the 1040 we could eliminate hundreds of agencies and hundreds of thousands of government employees that are paid with tax dollars. Please don't say what the rickyroo's says, which is those government employees earn a paycheck which they spend and that stimulates the economy. If you say that let me ask you this, those government employees are paid with tax dollars collected from tax payers, what do you think tax payers would have done with the tax dollars if they didn't have to be paid to government employees? You can only do three things with money, spend it, invest it, or give it away. I guess you could burn it but we will assume no one will. Rickyroo loves to say all the wealthy do is invest their money, well, ok, what does investments create. JOBS.

oh by the way I don't want to support subsidizing massages for Rev. Haggard or silk suits for Rev. Graham or Crystal Cathedrals or media centers. I guess what you are saying is you are indirectly subsidizing them because others are paying less taxes thru their deductions, if that's the case you currently are subsidizing those things.

January 1, 2014 at 11:22 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.