LiveWire

A meandering contemplation by Maynard

The headline: House Dems struggle for final votes. Ah, the final solution to America’s health woes is at hand.

Here’s the way it works, as I understand it (and this is not my area of expertise, so correct me if I’m wrong). The Speaker has a strategic advantage, in that she can bring a bill up for a vote when she’s ready…that is to say, when she’s got commitments for the necessary votes. So the vote will be delayed until/unless the outcome is known and favorable.

Pressure is brought to bear upon wavering votes. As I’ve noted, the party machine has many ways to bring an erring member into line. You can lose committee status or you can simply lose perks.

On the positive side, you can be promised goodies in exchange for your vote. You’ll get your bridge, your library, whatever. Maybe you’ll even get your name on it. You can go home to your district and claim you brought home the bacon. This is very good for your re-election prospects. The individual Congressmen know how to work the system.

Giving away goodies can get very expensive, of course. It’s impossible to rein in the deficit when Washington is free with commitments. Being frugal makes one unpopular in Washington. Fiscal responsibility may be good for the nation, but it’s bad politics. That’s why fiscal irresponsibility has especially ruled the day when the Dems ran the whole show or when the Reps ran the whole show. A balance of power has the advantage of each faction blocking the other’s stupid boondoggles.

Obama is pulling out all the stops to push this through. This probably means big political debts. So, although there will be pledges of fiscal responsibility to accompany this bill, in fact the budget-busting health control plan will probably result in reduced fiscal restraint on other fronts. Additional political debts will inevitably translate into bigger public debt. We’re accelerating into the train wreck.

Obviously many moderate Democrats have misgivings about this out-of-control health plan, and they might prefer to vote against it, either as a matter of personal conviction or, for those that have no personal convictions, then political expediency. There’s a very active opposition to this plan, and so those that vote “yes” and live in moderate districts will face invigorated opposition.

That’s one reason why Obama wanted the vote as far away from elections as possible…preferably last summer. As unpopular as this bill would be, many voters have a short attention span and this year’s treachery may be forgotten next year.

So if Pelosi lines up her votes, the count will not go much above the bare minimum majority. That’s because wavering representatives would rather take the safe option of voting “No” if their vote isn’t crucial for passage. Thus they get the best of both worlds…the party leadership gets its win and is happy, but the dissenter doesn’t have the stigma of having supported this awful monstrosity.

(You’ll remember that Bill Clinton’s tax hike got the bare minimum to pass, for exactly this reason. Once the Dem leadership nailed down a majority, everyone else voted “No”. And the next election cycle, the Republicans swept to power.)

There’s a very abnormal aspect to this bill. The implications to America are HUGE. We generally understand that the plan is to grow the public option over time, either driving private insurance out of business, or controlling it to the extent that it essentially becomes a government subsidiary, sort of like a regulated public utility. The government will then have its fingers into the most intimate decisions of every one of us. I’ve made the editorial argument before, so I won’t dwell on it here.

The abnormal aspect is that, for something this big, the general political game plan is to build something of a national consensus. Yes, technically a bill requires 50% plus one vote, but that isn’t what you want to do for a matter of such gravity. Both Bush presidents went to Congress before moving militarily against Iraq and, in spite of protests, did get support that went far beyond a bare minimum or partisan shutout. And as big and controversial as Iraq was, you’ll note that we eventually get out of it. Once the government gets into health control, we’re pretty much stuck with it until the country collapses. There is no exit strategy from Obama’s war on America. And that’s by design. But, as you see, this plan is being railroaded by an extreme faction with a momentary (and fading) political advantage. The principle of consensus has been thwarted. This bodes ill for any future prospects of Congress working for national unity and the national interest.

To exemplify the extent to which this health control plan would be eternal and uncontrollable, you can see how it’s proved impossible to make any structural changes to Social Security. George Bush was excoriated for pointing out the plan’s looming insolvency and daring to suggest that we needed to do something, anything. Bush called up a bipartisan committee of heavy hitters. But in the end, we did nothing. Thus we remain (and this is obvious and undeniable) on a course that will lead to a meltdown a few years down the road. Once again, lousy economics, but great politics.

I’ve said before that I regard Leftism as by-product of mental illness. I’m not saying that as a pejorative statement; I’m making a clinical judgment. And by the way, I think we’re all at least a little bit mentally ill. I certainly am. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a bit of kookiness. The problem with Leftism is it’s an aggressive kookiness. You can ignore Maynard the kook. But you can’t ignore Obama the kook. Both Maynard and Obama aspire to tell you what to do. But if you flip Maynard the bird, he’ll go home and cry. Obama will lock you up.

Because Obama is so aggressive in his push for control, and because America is inclined to resist control, the nation is likely to suffer a great internal conflict. If Obama is unchecked, then there will eventually come a flashpoint, which could grow to domestic discord the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Civil War. On the other hand, if Obama is blocked in his pursuit of power, there will probably be a White House meltdown of Nixonesque proportions. This could lead to something of a Constitutional crisis…but it would be, as with Nixon, a Washington thing. That would certainly be preferable to a national conflict with blood spilled.

Or maybe I’m wrong, and we’ll all go home and be good little serfs. We’ve put up with a lot so far. It’s now “natural” that we have government oversight, or must ask the government’s permission, for so many new things. Maybe there’s no limit. The analogy of the slowly-boiled lobster is often made, and I find it apt.

Amen

Although I blame Obama for this situation, I must step back and remember this isn’t about Obama. As awful as he is, a nation which should have known better allowed this avaricious man to rise to power. Therefore I have no fantasy that Obama’s sudden passing would solve our problems. There is a lesson that must be learned before we can be done with Obama. We will learn that lesson and move on in hope, or we will reject it and our great experiment will be ended.

In any case, there will be struggle ahead. Indeed, the essence of life is struggle, and never forget this or doubt it. Stay tuned, and, like Kim Munley, stand ready to do your part.