How to succeed in politics

COLUMNS

D'ya think?
How to succeed in politics

Jim Bispo

write the author

October 25, 2009
The Reps are painted as the party of "no" every time they resist further Socialization of America. The Reps offer all manner of ideas to improve the health care bills being proposed and each is summarily voted down in a party line vote. No input allowed suddenly makes the Reps the party of "no". Do you suppose that is the no they are talking about?? No input accepted?? It might be interesting to see a list of Rep proposed amendments to the Senate Health Care Bill with an indication as to which ones were adopted. The party of no, indeed. Keep saying it over and over and sooner or later people will begin to believe it. (It seems likely that some who don't bother to do much of their own thinking already have.)

A variant of the "say it again Sam" ruse is practiced by Robert Gibbs. When Robert Gibbs gets a difficult question (defined as one he can't or doesn't want to answer) he frequently replies by telling us that the issue was settled last November. Another response to a particularly thorny question is something to the effect that "Further conversation about that subject is unacceptable". Well, it seems to work for the Prez.

And now, since we have figured out how to keep the big banks in line (i.e. the ones we bailed out), a new initiative. This one the brain child of Mrs. Geithner's boy, Timmy. We will be looking at other banks to make sure that they don't overpay their executives or take too many risks (other than those forced on them by those who would make housing "affordable" by giving folks an $8000 tax credit when they purchase a house that they could not otherwise afford.). Wasn't that the same Ponzi like approach to home ownership that got us into the housing bubble from which we are currently working to escape?? So why are we pushing more folks into the same unfortunate situation with our outlandish tax credit??. Do we never learn???

Speaking of "Do we never learn?", here's a good one for you. For years and years the Government run flood insurance program allowed people to purchase flood insurance and make it effective as soon as it was purchased. So what happened?? People didn't purchase any flood insurance until it looked like a hurricane was going to hit them and they were going to be inundated - and then they rushed down to their friendly insurance agent and purchased the Government backed flood insurance (effective immediately upon payment of the premium).. They saved themselves a lot of money by not having to pay the premiums when no hurricanes headed their way. And they received a really good return on investment when hurricanes (with their attendant flooding) came their way. Well, finally some bureaucrat (or perhaps it was one of the free enterprise agents who handled the paperwork for the government) suggested that people were taking advantage of the situation by being allowed to purchase the insurance effective immediately upon payment of the premium. And (I am sure after a great deal of wringing of hands and deliberation) the rules were changed to the effect that the insurance cannot become effective until a minimum of 30 days after the premium is paid.. It would seem that the FEMA folks are capable of learning. Good for them. Apparently, the same cannot be said of the U.S. Congress.

The Dems who are reworking the Baucus bill behind closed doors do not seem to have learned anything from FEMA or the flood insurance experience. They are allowing uninsured folks to pay a small "fine" instead of purchasing health insurance. People will apparently be allowed to purchase insurance (effective immediately) at any time (like when they get sick). No turn downs for any reason. Another fine example of unintended consequences?? Don't bother with health insurance until your doctor tells you that you need a quadruple by-pass, and then rush down and purchase some government subsidized health insurance (effective upon payment of the premium). A much better deal for the newly insured person than for the long suffering tax payers.

You know, as I think about it, if they would give us an iron clad guarantee that they would not change that provision, a single payer program may not be such a bad thing after all. The only time we would have to buy insurance would be when we get really sick. In between quadruple by-passes or hip replacements or heart/lung transplants we could simply pay a "token fine". That would certainly reduce the cost of insurance for virtually every American - except possibly the long suffering tax payers who would be stuck with the health care bill of those who "game" the system at the expense of the rest of us. Oh well, nothing is perfect.....

About the only other thing one needs to know to ensure a successful career in politics is to keep the folks beholden to you. Do that and they will do your bidding lest they be excluded from whatever largesse you are able to provide for them. If you "bad mouth" me or even question any of my pet projects, you are suddenly no longer allowed in my tent. When you wise up and return to extolling the wisdom and virtue of the things I am pursuing, you will be welcomed back. In the meantime, you are on your own.. You don't have to blackmail them. In the case of the banks you can simply reduce the pay of their top employees and it is very likely they will accept the decision (and will, sooner or later figure a way around it). After all, if the banks fight the imposition, all the administration needs to do is fire up one bank audit after another until the bank is audited into submission.. When the only choices you have are choices that would have made Machiavelli smile, it isn't blackmail, is it??. Well.... Maybe....

Do 'ya think??