To Increase or Not To Increase? That Is the Question!

There is a current conflict over whether the fees to benefit from Tricare, health care provided by the military to military retirees and their families, should go up. The driving force behind this movement to increase the fees for Tricare is the Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. He is considering whether to ask for Tricare fee increases in next year’s budget. The reason behind his desire to increase fees is that because of nearly 4.5 million military retirees and their families, about three-quarters are estimated to have access to health insurance through a civilian employer or group. But more than two million of them stay on Tricare. Mr. Gates presents a very understandable fear that rising health care costs will make less money available for new weapons, repairs to a worn-out arsenal and quality-of-life programs like schools on military bases. However those opposed to Gates’ movement believe that we should not take away from those who have served our country which is an equally valid point.

I agree more with Robert M. Gates because if the majority of these people are being supported by other health care benefits then there is really no need for them to be benefited by Tricare either. And by increasing the costs that will get rid of the people who don’t need Tricare as much however it will allow those who really need it and are willing to pay for it to continue to have it. I also agree with his view that the Tricare benefits should and will only be cut from the veterans and their families, not the ones on duty. The increase in Tricare costs will not affect those 65 and older who use a free program. Gates movement to increase Tricare costs is with the best intentions and if he succeeds I hope it will do as it is intended.

Treaties Do Have A Preference

Seven months ago President Obama signed the New Start treaty. This treaty is between Russia and the United States and is basically an agreement between the two which bars each side from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers. It also resumes inspections that were halted when the first Start treaty expired last year. The treaty has yet to be approved and passed in the Senate. What I find interesting is that many treaties proposed by Democratic Presidents in the past have been left unapproved or have been rejected. The senate rejected Woodrow Wilson’s Treaty of Versailles as well as Bill Clinton’s Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and President Jimmy Carter’s Salt II Pact. Unlike the Democrats Republicans have had success in winning Senate consent for big treaties — Richard M. Nixon with Salt I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaties, Ronald Reagan with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, George H. W. Bush with the first Start treaty, and his son George W. Bush with the Treaty of Moscow, an arms reduction agreement.

I find this contrast in the passing of the treaties between the two parties very intriguing. First of all I often forget that treaties are often passed. During my lifetime it has been the wars which have gotten all the attention such as the Afghan war and the Iraq War. The treaties however don’t get that much news coverage or I am just not watching the news close enough. But the one thing about this news which got my attention was the idea that one party can be more successful than another in passing treaties. Treaties seem like something to me which isn’t about parties as treaties are between our country and other countries, it is nothing something that is strictly within the United States. A treaty with another country wouldn’t just benefit the Republicans or Democrats, but the country as a whole. Despite my beliefs however certain parties have been more successful with passing treaties and I hope to discover why in the future.

A Woman Surrounded By Controversy

The day on which the House decides its speaker is nearing. The current speaker Nancy Pelosi seems like she will win the position of the Speaker of the House again. However she continues to face a small rebellion within her own party about returning as Democratic leader. More than 15 House Democrats have expressed concerns about Ms. Pelosi’s hanging on to the party’s top spot. Some of Ms. Pelosi’s allies said she had retained a strong core of support in the Democratic caucus and would be easily re-elected. Democratic officials say those who have gone public represent a much broader spectrum of House Democrats who are uneasy about Ms. Pelosi’s remaining as leader after the crushing losses on Election Day. Despite people being opposed to Pelosi, no one has stepped forward to challenge Ms. Pelosi. The main Democratic leadership fight for the moment continues to be for the party’s No. 2 slot.

I find it surprising that in these times, when the Democratic Party is struggling so much and losing control of the Senate and losing seats in the house, they do not all support one another as much as possible. It seems that to me in times of weakness the party would bond and become stronger however the situation of Pelosi shows that is not the case. In fact people in the Democratic Party continue to dislike and criticize and go against Pelosi. However this is only a minority who has expressed a concern for Pelosi having the position of Speaker once again. It’s also very interesting to me how she’s uncontested at the moment. It makes the opposition seem like they are either cowardly or they just don’t believe in their ideas and beliefs strong enough to take action about them. The Speaker of the House position is one surrounded by controversy however it seems that it’s a one woman race that Nancy Pelosi is running.

Divided Government

A very interesting concept is that of divided government and the roll it has played in U.S. politics. As many would say that the victors of these midterm elections were the Republican Party others would say the actual victor is divided government. In the last two decades a strong pattern of divided government has emerged in our political system. This new pattern is because the public desires and prefers divided government as they have clear reason to. The definition of is when one party controls the White House and the other controls either or both chambers of Congress. Washington has been split between the parties for more than 21 of the past 30 years The middle four of President George W. Bush’s eight years represented the longest stint of unified government in that span most likely due to the unity of the country after 9/11.

What is also very interesting to me is how when divided government is absent and one of the two party’s has complete control of the U.S. government, controlling the Whitehouse and the Congress, its popularity collapses and the voters bring in the other party. This phenomenon seems to of come up quite recently as back in the day during the Great Depression up until the Ronald Reagan years, the public had no problem with keeping Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House at numerous times. However during those times the leaders of those days were diverse in their thoughts and opinions. Not everyone in the Republican Party thought the exact same thing and voted the same way and same went for the Democratic Party. However today, the parties have been separated along ideological lines. The result is that the system behaves very differently when one party is in control than when they share, a very interesting phenomenon as well.