I finished Rick Perry's Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. In this post, I'll highlight my favorite passages from my latest reading, as well as provide my own comments:
1.
Page 171: "I see a nation where the people and their own doctors get to
decide how to care for their families. I see individuals who own their
own health insurance policies and that those policies are not
controlled by employers, can account for preexisting conditions, and
have affordable prices driven down by robust competition. I see states
that have allowed for greater competition across their borders for
insurance companies. I see doctors who are not afraid to go into the
health field because trial lawyers are no longer allowed to hold them
hostage to runaway, abusive lawsuits...There will be a health care
safety net that is not built on the promise of what government can
provide for the people, but on what individuals can accomplish together
over our lifetime through work, savings, charity----and by spreading
risk out through insurance policies."
I especially
appreciate Perry's sensitivity in this passage to the issue of
preexisting conditions. I also like his acknowledgement that having
health insurance policies that are "controlled by employers" is
problematic, for that sort of set-up enables employers to hold their
employees hostage, plus there are sad stories out there about people who
are fired for being sick, right when they need the job for its
insurance coverage.
Would the policies that Perry
promotes make matters better or worse, though? I think that tort reform
may increase the supply of doctors, which will help to bring down the
price of health care. I'm more skeptical about the notion that
individuals owning their own health insurance policies will make things
better, for it's cheaper for people to get insurance from their
workplaces than as individuals. Moreover, private insurance does not
always enable "people and their own doctors [to] get to decide how to
care for their families", for private insurance can be rather stingy
when it comes to health care. Regarding competition across state lines,
I think it's a good idea to shatter the monopolies in states when it
comes to health insurance (see my post here). At
the same time, I fear that competition across state lines can lead to a
race to the bottom as insurance companies seek to keep prices low.
That, in my opinion, will not help those who have pre-existing
conditions.
On the need for insurance companies
to spread risk out, I question that relying on private insurance is the
best way to do this. You need a large pool of people contributing to
the policy for the risk to be spread out, and that does not exist when
there are a bunch of private policies out there. A single-payer system, by contrast, has a vast number of people contributing to the same policy.
2.
Page 173: "I see an America----led by the states and the people who
live there----that has clean air, clean water, ample green space, and an
environment filled with abundant wildlife. I also see an America with
abundant energy, a generous mix of wind, solar, and hydro-electric
power; fossil fuels; and many other resources of which we are blessed
with large quantities. There is no reason we cannot lead the world in
developing clean energy while continuing to fuel our economy with the
energy it needs to create wealth, jobs, and opportunity."
I
appreciate Perry's view in this passage that there should be a lot of
"green space" with "abundant wildlife". I've heard conservatives mock
the notion that we should be concerned about trees being cut down,
development getting rid of green space, and endangered species. "Why
not put the animals in zoos?", some conservatives have asked.
Would
federalism make matters better or worse, though? I referred in an
earlier post to Noam Chomsky's view that leaving more powers to the
states hurts the environment, since states are more captive to big
companies than the federal government is, as states want for the
companies to stay and thus are more willing to give them what they want
(i.e., lax environmental regulations). (This may be a national problem
now, however, since companies can leave the United States for places
that have lax environmental regulations.) At the same time, people want
to have clean air and clean water, and hopefully they'd be able to make
their voices heard and obeyed in Rick Perry's ideal system, were
something like that to become a reality.
I agree with Perry's
emphasis on clean energy. I tend to believe, however, that the
government should take some initiative in financing that. In addition,
Perry highlights the importance of fossil fuels, but my concern there is
that fossil fuels are pollutants.
3. Page 177: "When the federal
government oversteps its authority, states should tell Washington that
they will not be complicit in enforcing laws with which they do not
agree. Again, the best example is an issue I don't even agree
with----the partial legalization of marijuana. Californians clearly
want some level of legalized marijuana, be it for medicinal use or
otherwise. The federal government is telling them they cannot. But
states are not bound to enforce federal law and the federal
government cannot commandeer state resources and require them to enforce
it. So good luck to the federal government if it wants to enforce
every law on its books without the help of state and local law
enforcement."
States disobeying the federal government can lead to
chaos, but there is a part of me that would cheer California on were it
to do this! I also appreciate Perry's acknowledgement that California
has the right as a state to do something that he disagrees
with----legalize marijuana. I thought that he somewhat moved away from
this approach as a candidate for President, however, not in the area of
marijuana, but rather on the issue of same-sex marriage, as he supported
a Federal Marriage Amendment rather than allowing states to set their
own policies.
4. Pages 190-191: "I want to single out for special
recognition Chip Roy, an outstanding legal scholar who previously
served as legal adviser to U.S. Senator John Cornyn in his Senate
leadership office and on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and who
resigned his position as Special Assistant United States Attorney to
devote himself full-time to the completion of the original manuscript.
Writing a book of this nature in the midst of a campaign for reelection
was a herculean task and wouldn't have been possible without Chip's
dedication over the course of several months. He brought to this effort
an amazing knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and other Founding
documents, and a keen ability to frame federalist arguments in striking
terms that make complicated law easier for non-lawyers like me to
understand and discuss. Chip, it was a pleasure to work with you. You
have a brilliant legal mind, and after working with you on this project I
will never again attempt one like this without you by my side."
Although
there are things about this book that I did not like----Perry's
immature attack on Al Gore, and his failure to define the arguments of
the other side (whereas Rick Santorum in It Takes a Family at
least attempted to do this, on occasion)----there were elements of this
book that I really liked. There are Tea-partiers who love to blab on
about the Federalist Papers, but I have doubts that they even read
them. Rick Perry, however, quotes them. Perry also makes
historical arguments, and he does serious policy-analysis of such issues
as Obamacare, documenting his claims with end-notes (and, while he
sometimes appeals to right-wing sources in his documentation when
discussing certain issues, he also cites studies and news articles).
Chip Roy may have had a lot to do with this book being as good as it
is. At the same time, when it comes to the Federalist Papers, I think
that David Sessions of The Daily Beast has a point when he argues
that Perry quoted them rather selectively, quoting the passages that
agreed with his position while ignoring the ones that disagreed!