There was no opportunity to ask this question recently in a telephonic town-hall meeting held by California Republican Congressman Wally Herger, so the matter is open to discussion here.  Are Republicans and their conservative allies not jumping all over Democrats for their betrayal of uninsured taxpayers because, as some have argued, there is only one major political party in this nation, one of political incumbents?  Do Republicans represent all taxpayers?

Background: A working-poor uninsured taxpayer started counting the different taxes he has paid through the years (Medicare payroll taxes, federal and state income taxes, federal excise and state/local sales taxes, and local property taxes) and how many different government health-benefits programs those tax payments are used to finance for complete strangers: Medicare beneficiaries, federal employees, undocumented aliens in detention, the U.S. prison-inmate population, Medicaid recipients, Veterans hospital and clinic patients, CHIPS(Children's Health Insurance Program) users, Native Americans, state civil-service employees, school-district personnel and other municipal employees. 

In a 2000 court case in the Oregon District, the working-poor uninsured taxpayer raised Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection objections and invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to claim that Medicare, as-is, fails the public-purpose test in that latter Bill of Rights Article, by virtue of being publicly-funded, but only a private health-benefits program, and, therefore, it was appropriate for the court to exempt the plaintiff and others similarly situated from that taxation.  This was one of three suggestions he made for Constitutionally-prescribed relief.  A former party fund-raiser nominated by President Bill Clinton, the Democratic judicial appointee assigned the case refused to address the Constitutional claims advanced at all—even to argue that in her opinion they were wrong—she refused to compel the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, to defend Medicare on Constitutional grounds, and she dismissed the case "with prejudice." 

In the years since, Democratic candidates have raised record sums, tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds, on the mere promise, after election, of taking care of uninsured Americans, who, after all, are taxpayers to one degree or another and number, with their family members, at least 36 million.  Meantime, the uninsured taxpayer requested case re-opening, given new circumstances in 2008, and was refused again by the judge, although his attempt to exercise an appeal earlier had even been hampered.  When it appeared that it was no coincidence that the judge was thwarting the plaintiff at every juncture, he did a biographical search and learned the details of her Democratic political career and appointment mentioned above.  He next filed a judicial-misconduct complaint against the Democratic judicial appointee, charging that the political consideration of a quid pro quo for her judicial appointment—saving credit for uninsured relief until a Hillary Clinton or other future Democratic Administration promising health-care reform—figured in her  failure to protect Constitutional rights, and not any regard whatsoever for Constitutional requirements.  He has asserted that American legal and Constitutional traditions are built on protection of necessary self-interest, far from requiring individuals to sacrifice personal well-being for others, but the Democratic judicial appointee was overturning American legal and Constitutional traditions. 

Meantime, observe further Republican-bashing by Democrats claiming that the GOP was obstructing relief for uninsured taxpayers—although they did not refer to them as the taxpayers that they are.  Democrats fumed that they were counting votes for their program and Republican attack dogs in town-hall meetings were attempting to erode their support in Congress more. The whole time, relative to the judicial-misconduct complaint filed against her, Democratic judicial appointee Ann Aiken, under Rule 11 (d) of the U.S. Judicial Conference's Rules on Judicial Conduct Proceedings, has been free to take “voluntary corrective action” to satisfy the uninsured taxpayer's request for exemption from taxes used to pay for the government health benefits of strangers.  The Democrat-appointed Chief Judge in the Oregon District could likewise suggest that she do so.  And President Barack Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, could legitimately convey to her that she had made a mistake that she needs to correct.  But, instead, 70 days and counting since he was reminded by Memo sent to the White House through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ E-mail address, Democrats keep hammering at Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley and Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and continue their fund-raising efforts “for reform” full throttle!

So, why aren’t Republicans and conservatives jumping all over Democrats for their betrayal of voters and politicization of the courts?

By Charles Hampton Savage/Editorial Columnist
Continental Features/
Continental News Service, Inc.