Article first published as President Obama and His Frankenstein Monster on Technorati.

Associated Press released an article yesterday entitled Some states suing feds also claim health subsidies. The story tells of seven states, amongst the 20 now filing suit to overturn President Obama’s healthcare legislation, that have also filed to receive subsidies from the program. Many would conclude that it’s hypocritical to take money from a program that you’re fighting to end, but while a valid opposition argument is hard to imagine, it’s equally difficult to assign full blame on the deceit of these states.

It is the duty of every state to best serve the needs of its citizens, so if there is funding available through the program, it would be irresponsible for a state to not seek the subsidy. In a similar manner, if the presumption is made that the suits being taken against the purchase requirement are motivated from a desire to serve the people, then that action too must be considered appropriate. So, if these two assertions are true, wherein does the hypocrisy originate?

Of course, purported motives could be a sham; certain state officials may actually engage in litigation for purely political purposes, but that’s unlikely to be a universal rule. So, does this mean that there is no hypocrisy in the cases where the motives are honestly associated with the good of the citizenry? Perhaps not — but such cases beg the question of how an action can simultaneously be so duplicitous and yet pure.

One possible conclusion is that the duplicity is inherent in the object — that the healthcare legislation itself contains the hypocrisy. It was sold as a progressive solution to address inequities in the American healthcare system. It was also touted as reform, yet resulted only in expansion of the system that was already in place by adding government subsidies and mandatory purchase requirements. Whether or not anyone chooses to accept this as hypocrisy, the act of pushing legislation under some pretense, like reform, but really providing nothing of the sort, must be considered duplicitous.

I’ll not even offer an opinion regarding the legality of requiring everyone to purchase healthcare insurance, but I will suggest that it stretches the interpretation of regulating interstate commerce — the constitutional basis upon which the law has been justified. It would seem that the medical insurance industry could be regulated without making mandatory the purchase of medical insurance. And it’s true that the very premise that people can be required to purchase something without the ability to opt out is unique to this case in all of American government.

What occurs to me is that President Obama may have had pure motives when he set out to address healthcare, but in the end he created a Frankensteinian system. There was really only one legitimate method of creating a hybrid public/private system that could provide healthcare to those who would otherwise not have it — that was through the establishment of a “public option.” The public option would have addressed the issue of reform by establishing both a source for coverage of the uninsured and also competition within the industry. President Obama created this Frankenstein monster when he caved and allowed the medical insurers and Big Pharma to write the legislation which guaranteed then 32 million new patients and did nothing to reduce costs.

Sadly, the state suits protesting the healthcare law are perhaps the least significant consequence of the President’s creation. The real horror is that his hybrid abomination is truly a Frankenstein monster and as such is destined to contribute to his ruin. When the President should have been focused squarely on the economy and Wall Street reform, he was instead off in his Dr. Frankenstein laboratory making deals with the health services lobby. He then used up all of his political capital to pass healthcare legislation, with which neither the left nor right are happy.

Roll the calendar forward, and new financial legislation was passed but was weak and diluted, the economy is still in the dumper, unemployment refuses to subside, and healthcare costs are higher than ever. Had President Obama forgone healthcare and been more focused on the economy, would we be in better shape now? It’s hard to tell, but one thing is certain — there wouldn’t be this Frankenstein monster lurking about, and the Democrats would likely be in much better shape for November.

A book could be written about what Meg Whitman doesn’t know about government, the public sector in general and most specifically, public education. But the fact is that she wants the governor’s office and is willing to buy, lie and pander to get it. Unfortunately for Ms. Whitman, the price seems to keep rising. Maybe it’s pressure from Jerry Brown, or perhaps just a desire to overwhelm Californians with media blitz, but whatever the case, billionaire Whitman upped the ante on Friday by adding another $13 million in personal funds to her campaign chest.

Whitman, who has said that she’s willing to spend up to $150 million to buy the top seat in California’s government, has invested $104 million to date. Still $5.2 million short of the self-funding record set by Michael Bloomberg, she is outspending her Democratic opponent at a dramatic rate. Although Jerry Brown has accumulated $24 million in campaign funds, his spending to date is a miserly $700,000.

Some in the Brown camp are concerned about his frugal ways, and believe that he should jump center ring and grapple in the Whitman-financed mud wrestling. Many Brown supporters are concerned that Whitman’s continuous half-truth and distortion based assault may cause irreversible damage. They cite instances like her present illegitimate attempt to associate Brown’s record as Oakland’s mayor with the pension and pay scandals in Bell, CA as evidence that she must be rebutted. They argue that Brown needs to respond to Whitman’s blatant distortions, like her treating as fact, claims made by a fired city controller that City of Oakland employees were paid for thousands of hours that were not worked.

Other Brown supporters find comfort in the fact that even Whitman’s own consultants know that, despite all the money they’re spending, she’s not making any real progress. They contend that there’s plenty of time to explain that crime did not increase in Oakland under Brown, or how the tax increases she blames on Brown were actually approved by 70% of voters. They argue that she may have oversaturated the media with her abundant ads, and that the prudent tack may well be to let her continue the negative campaigning. So, for now, the Brown campaign is waiting and watching Whitman spend her millions, all the while revealing herself as the out-of-touch, mudslinging, wealthy panderer she is.

But just who Meg Whitman is may be a bit difficult to determine. She’s flip-flopped back and forth on offshore drilling, so her position likely depends on when it’s rendered. Her position on immigration is even more ephemeral, seeming to be tailored to whatever she thinks the current audience wants to hear: when interviewed on American Morning News this past July 28, Whitman stated that Arizona’s SB1070 should stand, but her Spanish language media ads that ran earlier said that she was opposed to the Arizona law.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who doesn’t question Whitman’s character must be either ignorant, in denial or as unscrupulous as she. And one does not have to look far for answers. Even at eBay, Whitman’s record was tarnished with claims of dishonesty, where she resigned her post there under charges of insider trading brought by her own shareholders. She denies the allegations, but admits to making money from “spinning” – an activity since rendered explicitly illegal by the SEC. The suit brought by eBay shareholders was settled and along with the others charged, Whitman paid $3 million.

Meg Whitman has a plan for California, but voters need to beware that Meg does what benefits Meg. In large part, she stands for what California stands against and vice versa. She is strongly against Prop-19; she’s neutral on Prop-23, which is sponsored by two Texas Oil giants, but she supports a suspension of AB32, which would have a similar effect in lifting pollution standards. While at Goldman Sachs, she was even a big supporter of the huge bonuses for which Wall Street is now infamous.

In the final analysis, Meg Whitman is a billionaire, and she’s not likely to change her mega-wealthy patterns of behavior —  like hiding profits in the Cayman Islands — just because she becomes Governor of California. She’s used to getting what she wants, and she wants to run this state. The trouble is that from the perspective of an average Californian, she’s likely to run it straight into the ground.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined an array of Republican lawmakers who feel we should examine whether to rescind all or part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to prevent some children born in the U.S. from being granted U.S. citizenship. The pro-life, pro-family Republicans are now pro-neonatal detention and deportation. It isn’t enough to drive out the people not born here, now they want to drive out the ones that were.

Actually, I agree with Senator McConnell. We absolutely should hold hearings as soon as possible to discuss whether we should amend the U.S. Constitution to make newborns deportable. We need a high-level national discussion in both Houses of Congress on the issue of whether to station federal ICE agents in every maternity ward and delivery room right between the OB-GYN and the expectant father.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Congressman

Great, so Rep. Gutierrez is already fear mongering up a storm with scenarios of Gestapo enforcers stomping around in maternity wards. I can’t help but wonder how liberals separate this type of fear based campaigning from the Sarah Palin death panels. Both contrive wildly extreme possibilities in order to discredit legitimate concerns, and neither attempts in any way to identify a solution.

I’m sorry, but I find it poetic that the one amendment to our Constitution that was enacted without rightful ratification and is also unconstitutional in its inclusion of ex post facto law, should now be the subject of such debate. The 14^th Amendment obviously did the right thing in providing citizenship to blacks and guaranteeing due process and equal protection, but the way in which it was enacted was an abomination. And now, the Party that illegitimately enacted the amendment wants to review and possibly rescind it. Now that’s poetic!

Personally, I‘d like to see the amendment changed, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I would support any retroactive application. The truth seems evident that the enacting Congress didn’t address the potential for abuse from illegal immigrants having children in order to obtain citizenship. That’s the just the way it is.

People like me, who believe that the abuse warrants a change, have but one form of recourse — amend the Constitution. That’s the way we do it in the United States. To do otherwise is to subvert the very spirit of our democracy.

I for one would welcome a national conversation on this topic. I’d like to hear the reasoning of people who believe that a child born of parents in the United States illegally should be granted citizenship. Is there an ethical argument? Is it simply a position of practicality? I’m sorry, but to me it wreaks of defending the rights of litigation for the guy who climbs on somebody’s house to burglarize them and falls through their skylight and gets injured.

I know, I know — there’s a child involved. But what I don’t understand is why there’s not more outcry against parents who would use their child this way. Break the law and hide behind a child . . .  now that sounds unethical to me.

Whatever side people are on, wouldn’t it be great if we could all just state our piece and work together toward a solution? It would be quite remarkable, but we’ll never get there so long as every issue is met with all the fear-mongering hyperbole currently waged by conservatives and liberals alike. How about instead, we stop the posturing, listen to one another and open a dialog?