Blog

In the last edition of our political commentary, I talked about how regular, everyday folks were tired and frustrated at the anti-job growth legislation coming down from D.C. and how those people, who typically refrain from exposing themselves to politics, were getting engaged in what policy makers were doing.

This frustration spilled over in Massachusetts.  A once apathetic electorate became mobilized in the recent Massachusetts Senate election between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley.  Brown, an anti-establishment Republican, was once an underdog who had no chance of contending with Coakley, a Democrat in a Democratic state who was planning to replace one of the most liberal Senators, Ted Kennedy.

At the end of the day, as expected, the Democrats voted for Coakley and the Republicans voted for Brown.  What did surprise many is the large turnout of independents in the election—independents who historically were absent from such elections.  But not this one.  Massachusetts independents voted two-to-one for Brown.  They came out and collectively said, “we need to go in a different direction.”  What they probably didn’t realize is that they not only changed the course of politics in their own state, but they may have changed the direction for the entire country.

I also talked about the anti-economic growth policies that had a good chance of passing through Congress—certain provisions in the Healthcare bill, as well as Cap and Trade and the Employee Free Choice Act.  With the election of Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate (instead of Coakley, who would have certainly stood behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), those anti-economic growth policies have been stopped in their tracks.

Healthcare

Though the majority of Americans believe the nation’s healthcare system needs to be revamped, the majority of Americans did not believe Congress’ healthcare bill was the answer.  Before the Massachusetts’ election, the healthcare bill was a certain shoe-in to pass.  Now, not so much.

Though the healthcare bill could have provided healthcare for more Americans, it would have done so at the cost of jobs.  The bill forced employers to provide healthcare for their employees, whether they could afford it or not.  This provision alone would have been a tremendous burden on business and, ultimately, a job killer.  Additionally, the healthcare bill did not address lawsuit abuse, nor did it address competition, such as allowing consumers to purchase healthcare beyond their state’s borders.

Now that Brown has been sworn in, the Senate may not have the votes to pass healthcare as defined by Congress last year.  As seen with Obama’s proposal in early March, Congressional Democrats will be forced to work across party lines to put together a healthcare package on which both Democrats and Republicans agree in order for anything to pass.

Employee Free Choice Act

Before the Scott Brown triumph over Coakley, this bill had an opportunity to pass through the Senate. Now, it will be much more difficult.  A bill that unfairly favors unions will be three or four votes short of passing the Senate.  The bill would eliminate secret ballot elections, it only would require 51 percent of the employees to participate in the union election, and it would force businesses to negotiate its contracts with DC bureaucrats—even for private businesses in right to work states.

Prior to the Brown win, the Senate was two votes short of a filibuster-proof vote to pass this bill. Now, they are three votes short—a huge differential inside the Beltway.

Cap and Trade

Americans overwhelmingly believe that industry has a responsibility to protect the environment.  But, Americans aren’t sure that forcing American companies to implement standard carbon emissions that put the country’s companies at a huge competitive disadvantage is the answer.  Even here in South Carolina, jobs could be at risk if this bill passes.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, if Cap and Trade passes, “It will negatively impact South Carolina’s economy by raising energy prices and reducing household income. South Carolina would be the 43rd “Biggest Loser” in the country. According to the Heritage Foundation, between the years 2012 and 2035, South Carolina would lose each year an average of 18,572 jobs, $3.49 billion in gross state product or about $726 per person.”

With Brown opposed to Cap and Trade, the Senate Democrats will be forced to horse trade some provisions with the Republicans to have an opportunity to pass this bill.

At the end of the day, what the Massachusetts voters did was more than just change their own destiny; they may have changed the direction of the entire United States government.