Challenging the Status Quo

I was amused when I read the news this morning that Linda McMahon, wife of Vince McMahon and current President of the World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly the World Wrestling Federation), was resigning her post and was looking to run for a Senate seat. I find it amusing because it seems that we'll likely need her experience in Congress and across the government. What kind of experience? Well dealing with heavy drama and factions and disagreements. Perhaps she'll be able to help set up some type of rules meant to keep the attacks and mocking in Congress to a standard so that if it does come to blows, at least we'll know what is legal and what isn't. I mean no offense to Ms. McMahon. I'm sure she'll state her case for wanting to run for the Senate properly and will even potentially win a seat which will not be the first time that someone from the WWE (or WWF) has made it into a high government seat. Remember Jesse "The Body" Ventura?

But why would a former head of a wrestling company be a good fit for Congress? Well given the way that things in Congress are beginning to resemble and episode of WWE's RAW or Smackdown do you need to ask? Not to say that there are body slams and full nelsons being given while discussing tort reform but verbal assaults from both sides of the partisan lines have been escalating and if things continue, it won't be long before a wrestling ring is brought into the Rotunda of the Capitol and then we have an arena where things are worked out when there are major disagreements. I'm sure some readers think I'm taking a rather dim view of our Congressional leaders but seriously, they are beginning to act like children these days and it only seems to be getting worse.

Last week when Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie" to President Obama during his primetime address to the nation during a joint session of Congress, I couldn't help but begin to draw parallels between what Hulk Hogan used to do to Andre the Giant back in the old days of wrestling. If Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi had the sense of mind to stop being shocked and egg things on like the commentators used to do then we could have settled the matter right then and there. But then again this is the Congress of the oldest democracy in the world so a little civility and decorum is in order. Or is it? I will not deny that every single President has had his detractors and his share of negative comments while visiting Congress but somehow there seems to be a bit more being attached to the commentary being flung in Obama's direction.

Former President Jimmy Carter stated to NBC earlier this week that he is convinced that a lot of the negative attention is coming from racism. He believes that a lot of the negativity is racially motivated and that people aren't admitting it openly. I agree with him. I'm not saying that Obama should get a 'pass' or that you should suddenly change the way you behave with him but what gets me is the way in which people seem to think that his plans to help the majority of Americans is meant to be an act of socialism or welfare. How can giving an American citizen access to government sponsored Health Insurance be considered a bad thing? Why shouldn't we help our citizens? Aren't we doing that to a certain degree anyways?

You don't agree? Well think about it. When you pay your federal taxes, you are paying for federally funded projects. You may think about the ones that affect you locally but it's likely that your money is helping to pay for a project somewhere else in the country. So isn't that very much like socialized support? Who says that I'm in favor of my tax dollars going to build a bridge in Alaska? I'm not. Similarly I'm sure people in Alaska could care less if the federal government chips in to make improvements to the beltway around DC since they will never use it anyways. The arguement over socialized programs is not a new one but somehow there seems to be increased belief these days that there is more support to 'welfare queens' (as Reagan put it) than there is to the average citizen. And the one's protesting the loudest? They're the ones who aren't being affected. They're the status quo so why should they complain?

But let me ask you something else. Those of you who do have health insurance that is. The next time you get your paycheck, see how much is being deducted for your health plan. Then multiply that out to get how much you pay per year for your coverage. Now consider how much you pay when you go to the Doctor's office. I'm not talking about the co-pay (which is your contribution at that time) but the actual bill. It's probably not as much as what you'd have to pay if you paid the whole thing at one time. So where does the insurance company get all those thousands of dollars needed to pay for your doctor's exam? Why from the contributions of others like you who have insurance with them. So isn't that socialized support too? Yet that's not spoken of as being socialist or a welfare reform. And what people need to understand is that the reforms being put forward are an option, not a compulsion. We are being asked to 'fund' it through our tax dollars. And it could be done if we just cut unnecessary spending by the government. Case in point would be projects like Alaska's bridge to nowhere. That was only one example that was batted down. I'm sure there are plenty more where that came from. When you have choice and competition, the price for the product (in this case Insurance) will go down. That would be good for everyone wouldn't it? Or would that be poo-pooed because it's socialized benefits?