|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
John Kasich- apostle or chameleon?
By Jim Surber
Back in the heady days of the 1990’s when politicians like Newt
Gingrich and John Boehner resolved to change the fiscal direction of
the federal government; John Kasich was the Republican chairman of the
House Budget Committee and swung a ferocious budget ax.
Later in 2010, after a stint on Wall Street, Kasich was elected Ohio
governor under the Tea Party sign. His recently-passed $62 billion
state budget included higher sales and property taxes, but little
healing of his previous budget cuts to schools, police-fire, and local
governments.
Republicans call this “truth in taxes,” while Democrats say it simply
shifts the costs from the wealthy to those of lesser means.
Although he described himself as a fierce opponent of Obamacare, Kasich
argued during state budget deliberations that his sense of Christian
compassion favored extending Medicaid to poor adults and those with
disabilities who do not currently qualify, a position that has been
praised by many Democrats and moderates.
His evangelizing fell short of converting the Ohio Legislature, run by
Republicans, who moved to prohibit Medicaid expansion without
lawmakers’ (their) approval. Kasich promptly vetoed this provision.
But now the Governor has slyly pushed through the multibillion dollar
expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare.
By a 5-2 vote, the Ohio Controlling Board, an obscure committee that
usually makes small adjustments to the state budget, accepted some $2.5
billion in extra funds from the federal government that will provide
coverage for about 275,000 Ohioans who are not now eligible for
Medicaid, mostly working adults living near or below the federal
poverty level.
Like the current President, Kasich has asserted unilateral powers to
suspend laws that displease him and bypass legislative authority. In
reaction, thirty-nine House Republicans have signed a formal protest
and now threaten to take a case to the Supreme Court.
To me, the most fascinating part of this issue is the religious aspect.
The Governor has justified his position with many statements like,
“When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not
going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government
small. But he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor.”
Certainly, most of us can agree that this statement seems very likely,
in the context of Christian teachings.
It is much harder to decide if this is a heart-felt statement, or a
politically-expedient gambit. We have learned that successful
politicians do and say whatever is necessary to become elected and
re-elected. Also that to survive in politics demands the abilities of a
chameleon.
Still, Kasich’s demonstrated application of Christian principles is
noteworthy, simply because it appears consistent with the New
Testament. It is also true that public statements that invoke religious
teachings, until proven disingenuous, often carry the weight of magic
words.
I have always believed that the human capacity for rationalization is
one of the few infinite quantities in the universe. Religion,
particularly Christianity, is always folded neatly into conservative
political platforms and is often the basis for dissension between party
followers, with the most obvious example over abortion policy.
Concern for the plight of the downtrodden is never a tenet of
conservative government policy, and many will probably say that the
Governor belongs behind a pulpit, not in the Statehouse.
But humans always find ways to mitigate uncomfortable things such as by
saying, “I don’t recall Jesus Christ taking money from one person’s
pocket to give to someone else.”
True enough, but it is more difficult to dismiss Luke 3:11, as another
named John said, “He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two
coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let
him do likewise.” But again, the counter to this could be, “Alms-giving
should be done with free will, but not by a government mandate.”
I don't believe most people are against helping "down and out" people.
The challenge is always how to help them without encouraging them (or
even rewarding them) to remain "down and out"
As John Kasich prepares to run for re-election, he obviously recognizes
that many Republicans get the chance to vote before St. Peter. Many in
his own party might applaud his desire to help the poor, but condemn
his desire to do it with someone else's money. The very idea of Kasich
showing Christian charity to the poor and the weak with other peoples’
money will tempt his conservative base to kick him to the curb faster
than you can say "Robin Hood."
Still, Ohio is a unique state. Ohioans voted for Obama twice,
re-elected a Democratic Senator, and overwhelmingly overturned
anti-union laws in a referendum. But it is also run by a legislature of
75% Republicans, thanks to effective partisan gerrymandering over many
years.
Nationally, it appears that a common position is taken that Republicans
are against social entitlements and Democrats are against free
enterprise. Why must these two ideals be mutually exclusive? Why can’t
we support free enterprise and maintain the social safety net?
Accepting this proposition and providing a greater effort toward the
delivery and effectiveness of social programs, by both parties, would
seem to be the direction we need to take. Party bashing needs to die.
At least the Governor’s latest actions should provide food for thought.
|
|
|
|
