Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 7

7.  I’ll Take The Credit, You Take The Blame

If you listen to politicians very much, you’ll realize something very important. They never make mistakes when it comes to public policy. Only the OTHER GUY makes mistakes. You see it all the time. One guy takes office and the country starts going downhill. He and his supporters will swear up and down that his policies have nothing to do with it. It was that despicable guy in office before him that caused all the problems. Just give him time and he will take our country to the promised land flowing with milk and honey (and hopefully caffeine-free diet Mountain Dew).

On the other hand, if things begin to improve after he takes office, even if this was due to policies put in place by his predecessor, he’ll take ALL the credit. Then the predecessor’s supporters will be sure to point out that the present office holder didn’t do that, it was their man who held that office previously. They will also point out how the new guy is going to screw everything up royally by undoing their guy’s hard work.

This behavior also works in another way. Oftentimes the US Congress will be controlled by one party while the Presidency is held by another party. If Congress passes a law that was opposed by the President, the latter will sometimes sign it anyway due to being in a compromising mood or because he senses that the citizenry will look badly on him if he doesn’t. More rarely, he might veto the bill, forcing Congress to override it. Now suppose that the law ends up having a positive effect on the country. I guarantee you that the President will be telling everyone how he was a great supporter of that bill and attempt to take the credit for it. If he vetoed the bill, he’ll find a way to still take credit by saying something like the bill was flawed when he vetoed it, but changes were made before the override vote that greatly improved it. If, on the other hand, the law is a disaster, he will be blaming Congress and making excuses for why he signed it or taking credit for vetoing it.

You see, it is just not in the DNA of a politician to pass up credit for something good or take the blame for something bad.

But I must admit that sometimes it is not clear whether the actions of our politicians do good or harm. Economies can take years to fully respond to a new law or regulation. By the time the effect, good or bad, comes to fruition, many other actions will have been taken. It can be extremely difficult untangling what actions caused what effects. Also, actions can have multiple consequences. Some can be good, others bad. When this happens, the politician who supported an action will talk up the good results while the politician who opposed an action will talk up the bad results. Usually, these talking points will involve statistics which, as I mentioned in a previous post, can be used to prove just about anything. Most people don’t have the time to study in detail what they are saying to come to their own conclusions, so they just continue to believe their preferred candidate and reject the others. It would be nice if there were a lot of objective investigative journalists who spent the time needed to find the truth, but they seem to be a rare breed these days. Perhaps there would be more if they had been put on the endangered species list.

Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 6

6.  Your Proposals Are Un-Constitutional, Let’s Not Talk About Mine

Some years back, when John Edwards was running for President, I saw him on a late night talk show. The host asked him what he thought about a recent action President Bush had taken. Edwards said that Bush was wrong. The host asked why. Edwards responded with something like this, “Well, you see, there’s this little thing called the Constitution.” In other words, Edwards believed that Bush was violating the Constitution with his actions. Later the host asked Edwards about healthcare. Edwards began espousing his solution to healthcare availability and cost. It involved a lot of intervention by the federal government. All of it was clearly un-Constitutional given that the Constitution nowhere grants the federal government the power to set policy for the healthcare industry. Yet, he clearly did not see the irony in his words.

Edwards’ two-faced view of the Constitution is not unique to him. I have heard many politicians do the same thing. It seems that today the Constitution is no longer the document it was intended to be. Originally, the Constitution was to be an overarching law describing how the government was to be structured and selected as well a list of powers the citizens would allow the government to have.

For years now the Constitution has become a political bludgeon. It is only used by Politician A to beat Politician B over the head when the latter is attempting to do something the former dislikes. And just like with a real bludgeon, it is never used on one’s own head.

Also, for some people, the Constitution is subservient to the law. I have actually heard it said that some provision of the Constitution was null and void because the law forbids it. Sorry folks, that’s not how it works. The Constitution is the law of laws. It comes first. Any laws enacted by Congress MUST be in accord with the Constitution or the Supreme Court is supposed to strike them down.

Come on people, now. Smile on the Constitution. It is our friend. Without it our federal government could run roughshod over our country. Minorities would have no protection from majorities. This being the case, why do so many people want to do an end-run around the Constitution? Well, I believe it is because the Constitution, like every other document written by humans, is not perfect. As people discover the problems with these imperfections, they want to do something about them. But here’s the kicker. The Constitution itself has provisions in it on how it can be modified. It’s done through the amendment process. Granted, it is not an easy process. But, we wouldn’t want it to be easy lest it be modified so much as to make it unreadable.

Politicians, however, like to expedite matters. So, they like to simply violate Constitutional law and then hope the Supreme Court can be convinced that they have not. In fact, oftentimes the President will select Supreme Court justices that are favorable to his or her particular un-Constitutional actions and are willing to adjudicate in such a way.

We really need to start electing leaders that want to be obedient to the Constitution and are only willing to modify it legally rather than subvert it via law and the Supreme Court. If we ever stretch our Constitution to a breaking point, we will find ourselves on the road to serfdom.

The Individual Mandate

Since the US Supreme Court’s recent hearing of the case against the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or ObamaCare), a number of liberal commentators have gotten into a tizzy over the possibility that the high court will declare the mandate un-Constitutional, thus dashing the hopes of millions who foresaw the possibility of finally obtaining healthcare that was not affordable to them before. They tell us how much ObamaCare is needed by the uninsured, and justify the mandate using the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution. To hear these commentators speak, you’d think that those conservative Supreme Court justices, as well as every citizen opposed to the individual mandate, were in a celebratory mood, salivating over the thought that they have a chance to deny much needed healthcare to those worthless dregs of society. Come on, give me a break! I dare say that only a handful of people feel that way. Many kind, decent, and caring people are opposed to ObamaCare and its individual mandate. Why? Because it’s un-Constitutional. And for some people, that still means something.

Surely we all know that when the Constitution was drafted, it was intended to limit the powers of the federal government. After all, these citizens had just been fighting a tyrannical English government. Why would they immediately turn around and create a new government with essentially unlimited power over their lives? Why would they fight a war only to jump from the frying pan into the fire?

The Commerce Clause, which says “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states rather than mandate commerce. The intent was to make sure voluntary commerce occurred unimpeded across state lines, thus insuring the country was a unified whole as it pertained to trade.

The General Welfare Clause was obviously not intended to give Congress the power to implement any legislation they deemed to be for the general welfare. That would go counter to the whole purpose of the Constitution, which was federal restraint. Thomas Jefferson said this: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” In other words, the Constitution spelled out the powers of the federal government that would provide for the general welfare. That being so, Congress was granted the power to tax its citizens to finance those activities, but no more.

So, don’t believe those who say that those in opposition to the individual mandate are evil, mean-spirited people who want to see uninsured people dying in the streets. Rather, we who are opposed believe it is ultimately in the best interest of our country to not have an unbridled federal government. Giving Congress the power to dictate purchases US citizens must make is a huge unbridling.

Since the beginning of our country, Congress and the President have un-Constitutionally grabbed more power from the states and its citizens, oftentimes with a nod of approval from the Supreme Court. And just look at the mess we are now in. Their track record for handling our tax dollars is nothing to write home about. Look at what they have done with the Social Security trust fund. It’s now a distrust fund. Total unfunded liabilities are estimated to be about $60 trillion. Our national debt is over $15 trillion and increasing by a trillion dollars every year. Do we really want to put ourselves in these hands when it comes to everyone’s healthcare? While it is true that current calculations show that ObamaCare will actually reduce future obligations, it is also true that past calculations for existing government programs have been horrendously wrong. And it’s also true that once a segment of our economy is taken over by politicians, it becomes highly politicized, with incumbents expanding the scope of various programs in order to gain votes to stay in office. In other words, the politicians like to use some of the taxpayers’ money to benefit themselves during their reelection bids.

So, what to do about the uninsured? One option is charity. Another is to eliminate unnecessary regulations on the healthcare market, thus putting downward pressure on costs. Yet another is for each state to implement their own healthcare plan to the extent that its State Constitution permits. Ultimately, if a sufficient number of the American people become convinced that the best option is to have our leaders in DC mandate a national healthcare plan, an amendment can be added to the US Constitution granting the federal government this power. After all, that’s why Article V is in the Constitution. But it seems that more and more our leaders want to skirt around that Article and pass laws without the permission of their employers, the American people. I believe they have skirted around it for too long. It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough!”

The Perfect Health Care Plan

The national health care debate at the US Congressional level and across the United States of America has reached fever pitch. People are surrounding this issue from all directions just like a tribe of Native Americans circling a wagon train of pioneers. Well, I don't know about you, but I like the plan outlined by several Representatives and Senators that has these features:

No denials based on preexisting conditions
No cap on medical expenditures each year
No rationing of care
Patients get to pick their providers
A cap on cost of premiums

What I'm hoping for is a really low cap on the premiums, say no more than $5.00 per month. But, if it's more than this I will probably not take any insurance and just jump in whenever I develop a condition expensive enough to justify having the insurance. After all, if I can't be denied coverage based on any preexisting conditions, I should be able to do this. But wait, perhaps there will be some sort of waiting period after signup before the benefits kick in. Oh, it doesn't matter anyway. I just remembered that President Obama said that everyone would be required to have health insurance whether or not they want it or can afford it. I suppose there will be help for those who can't afford it. Although if they can keep the premiums down to $5.00 a month, there shouldn't be too many needing the help.

But wait just a minute! I just had an epiphany. How can the government possibly provide or expect insurance companies to provide unlimited health care with no preexisting conditions exemptions and no rationing using premiums that are capped. I am having a hard time seeing how that will work without changing the laws of mathematics. If Congress could just make $2 plus $2 equal $1,000,000, I believe their plan just might work. But I don't know how to make those numbers work. I know they don't work at the casinos. But perhaps our noble politicians have a trick up their sleeves.

One trick I've heard is to fund some of the health care plan by cutting fraud out of Medicare. Nice! But if it is possible to cut X number of dollars of fraud from the Medicare system at a cost of less than X number of dollars, why haven't they already done this? Is cutting wasteful spending out of the budget only important when we're in an economic crisis or we're wanting to start another spending plan? Also, I have heard that Medicare is drowning in debt, having trillions of dollars in unfunded future obligations. Won't all the fraud savings have to be put towards those obligations to help keep Medicare afloat? And won't that still not be enough to salvage it?

It's beginning to look like the only way to make ends meet with the proposed health care plan is to simply limit the payout to doctors and drug companies to the amount that is taken in from premiums. But if the premiums are too low, the payouts will be too low, and there will not be much incentive for these people, especially the doctors, to put themselves through 8-10 years of college and intern hell and accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. That means fewer doctors, which means more patients per doctor, which means the average visit time will have to drop from about 10 minutes per patient to perhaps 5 minutes. There's already people complaining that 10 minutes is insufficient time to consult with a doctor. They'll be yelling if it drops to 5. Oh well, I guess we can always get the government to force the doctors to work 24/7 under threat of imprisonment. I'm not sure who will treat them when they keel over from exhaustion.

I don't think there is any decent person who wants to see another human being go without needed health care. I certainly don't. But the harsh reality of this cold, uncaring Universe is that some things are just impossible. This may be one of those things. One thing seems certain to me. The only way we have any hope of paying for unlimited health care for everyone is to unfetter economic activity and allow productivity to increase tremendously. The increase in wealth, and the resulting increase in tax revenue may just be able to fund unlimited health care, although I am still skeptical. Feel free to comment if you believe I am missing something.