The Wall Street Journal ran the following excerpt from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave in 1981.

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something, in which, no one believes but to which no one objects -  the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead.  What great issue would have been fought and won under the banner of “I stand for consensus.”   October 6, 2009 Notables and quotables

This statement lays out the dilemma facing Republicans on healthcare.  On the very same day the preceding appeared, Bob Dole counseled Republicans to seek consensus, to get on board with the inevitable passage of some bill.  In short, to be on the right side of the politics.

I have considerable respect for Bob Dole, but he has it completely wrong.  The President needs a bill, any bill.  It provides a platform from which further expansion can be fashioned.  Given Mr. Obama’s extra-constitutional proclivities, the reform will then be implemented off the books, so to speak.  Czars, regulators and an overly generous reading of executive power will limit the congressional role to appropriations from this point forward.

This bill will provide the president his “Lincoln logs.”  He will build the house later on, away from the scrutiny and troublesome oversight.

This reform is a hodgepodge of ill-conceived strategies thrown together almost randomly.  As Thatcher pointed out, there are issues that need to “solved.”  A small sample of those follows.

**  Guaranteeing affordable coverage without exceptions for past and pre-existing conditions can only be paid for by raising the premiums of those with better medical histories and lower foreseeable risks.  There is no money in the pantry to finance this.

**  The inclusion of a public option at a cost of 8 to 9 percent of gross payroll is an inducement for employers to dump their current coverages. 

This bill is not a carefully developed strategy based on a thoughtful analysis of trends, needs and capabilities.  The Democrats are correct.  Reforms are needed, but they are not ready. 

We will learn a lot about the convictions of the Republican party in the near future.  Don’t expect profiles in courage.

A good American died this week, one, with whom I disagreed about almost everything. 

His worst moments were many and public.  Ted Kennedy will be remembered for his drinking, the unconscionable treatment of his first wife, the tragedy of Chappaquiddick and his unkind remarks during the Bork confirmation hearings.   Character weakness and circumstance often conspire to prevent us from making sufficient amends for our sins.  Long after the sinning, we still try to atone.   Few tried harder than Senator Kennedy.

Politics today is peopled by shallow actors tethered together in some Hollywood-style mutual admiration society. The Pelosis, Reids and Dodds are convinced that by co-opting the government to dispense favors, everyone will see that they are not just empty suits in search of love.  Like Presidents Nixon and Carter before them, many legislators are small men, longing for significance and hoping that power will magically transform them.

What did I like about Senator Kennedy?   He didn’t legislate to solve his self esteem problems.  He proposed legislation that he believed in and fought for.  When he advocated a position, he knew the argument for, the argument against and the counter-arguments for and against.  The senator could talk the details. He wasn’t a phony.  He made friends across the ideological divide, but remained religiously partisan.

In the late eighties, Kennedy responded to criticism from Democrats by acknowledging his personal shortcomings, characterizing them as “faults in the conduct of my private life.”   He went on to take responsibility and promise to do better.  Smaller men say “Even presidents have private lives.”

In politics, the small men call for changes in other men, other parties.  We see them, the “sorry I got caught" Republicans and the “didn’t know how I got such a favorable mortgage” Democrats.  Kennedy, like Reagan, campaigned against an incumbent president from his own party all the way to the convention.  You don’t risk political suicide for self-aggrandizement.  You do it for ideological conviction.   Reagan was about principle.  You should read the text of his GE speech for Goldwater in 1964.  1980 was hardly the perfect political storm for Kennedy.   If Kennedy had tunnel vision for the Presidency, he would have run in 1984.  To save the party from Carter, he had to run in 1980.

I think Senator Kennedy’s political philosophy was misguided to put it charitably.  But our lives are ultimately about more than political philosophy.  This man loved his family and his country and he worked hard for ideas he truly believed in.

Johnny Carson once interviewed a 95 year-old America Indian (if memory serves, he was a Spanish American war veteran).  The guest noted that he was so old, that he remembered when the men were made of iron and the ships were made of wood.  Kennedy was made of iron.  Few of his colleagues will be so remembered.

There is rumor afloat that the administration is contemplating a comprehensive reform of the piano moving industry.  I spent 36 years in this special niche as both an employee and employer.  I thought we were sufficiently regulated and this news came as a surprise.

A well-connected political friend has clued me in on some of the details.  The government will mandate that movers visually inspect the instrument and the pickup and delivery sites prior to the move and provide the customer with a binding written estimate of the charges.  I told my friend that would be silly and wasteful since sufficient information can be gleaned from a phone conversation to accurately quote all but 3-4 percent of all moves.  Only those require on-site estimates and usually only at the delivery location.

My friend explained that there will be a net savings from all the information collected and the improved customer relations resulting from the binding estimates.  Despite the additional time demands of the regulation and higher short term costs, the reform will generate profit over time.

The piano moving czar has further determined that since a tuning is necessary following every move, it will be included as part of the service.  I said “A tuning is not always necessary and why should I be responsible for providing it?”  My friend replied that Speaker Pelosi had met with some lobbyists for the piano tuners guild, who assured her that it was necessary and it was simply more efficient to include it as part of the moving service.

“What’s next, Medicaid for indigent piano owners?” I groused.  “There is some growing concern that separating owners from their instruments at a time of such economic uncertainty could be detrimental to the pianist’s psyche.  If we subsidize the owners during the economic downturn, we could sidestep the consequences of the ensuing, widespread depression." my friend advised me. "A small tax on the surtax on the tax on the top 1 percent of wage earners will assure that no musician loses his piano during the recession.  Combined with a small contibution from the medical marjuana people, the crisis can be averted."

“What about my reimbursement?” I inquired.  My friend comforted me that while some sacrifices need to be made, I should be grateful that mine were only financial.  “Besides, every detail will be addressed in the piano owner bill-of-rights that Congress is hard at work on.”

“Do we need all these regulations, the mandates, the subsidies and a customer’s bill-of-rights, – all this oversight to produce what used to be negotiated by the buyers and sellers of services.   I’m skeptical.”  My friend sighed knowingly “Relax, it worked for health care, didn’t it?”

The Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent policy coerced lenders into making mortgage loans to individuals who would not qualify for them otherwise.  The lenders, forced to comply, wrote the loans.  Then, they packaged them with some higher quality loans and sold off the unacceptable risk, immunizing their investors from the forseeable consequences of making inadvisable loans.  This outcome seems utterly predictable.

When the consequences of mandating these bad loans ultimately reverberated through the economy, only the politicians were shocked.  Even now, some proponents believe that the sale of these loans, not the unsustainable loans themselves, caused the banking crisis.  When 2 plus 2 turns out to be 4 yet again, only in Washington, is the outcome shocking.

Well, it's about to happen again.  President Obama's "public option" will have some predictable negative consequences and when they occur, politicians will be shocked and dismayed as they have assured us against these outcomes.

There are myriad proposals in varying states of development.  It is clear, however, that a payroll tax is in the works at or about eight percent of gross payroll for those employers who do not provide health insurance through the workplace.   Those who currently provide health insurance that costs more than eight percent against an employee’s gross wages will probably replace their plan with the eight percent solution (public option).

A Henry J. Kaiser foundation study in 2007 found the employer’s share of a group policy for family coverage averaged $8825 per year.  Assuming a modest five percent increase per annum, the 2009 employer’s share rises to $9698.  $9698 is eight percent of $121,225.  It stands to reason that most recipients of group health insurance make less than that, maybe $45,000.  What does this tell us?  The employer is already paying 21.55 percent against wages for the $45,000 employee.   What will this employer do when presented with an eight percent alternative.   He or she will dump the private insurance in favor of the public option.  Even if the employer is so dedicated to his employees that he chooses to stay in the private plan, he would put himself at a gross competitive disadvantage against those who select the public option.

This employer who is paying $9698 to cover his employee would be competing against a neighbor insuring the same $45,000 employee for $3600.  It is important to note that the insurance "company" for the public option is the government.  They are not reinsuring the risk.  They own it.  So the government promises insurance to a larger pool of people for a fraction of what the private market charges and there will be no rationing of care.

The public option will be the death of private insurance and only the politicians will be surprised when it happens.  When the subsequent rationing and tax increases follow, that will no doubt shock them too.

Michael Steele spoke recently to the National press club.  He made a thoughtful, if somewhat pedestrian, case against the current health care reform package.  The usually passionate Mr. Steele had a hard time articulating what voters most want to know “Who are these Republicans and given the chance, what will they do?”

Mr. Steele:

Republicans have presented their opposition to the administration’s health care reform as a choice between government control and the free market.  Many voters believe that the “government control” ship has long since sailed and that Republicans helped to launch it. 

Republicans have come to be seen as the proponents of a more modest socialism, a less intrusive nanny-state.  If elected, they will still intrude in the marketplace, but in a more principled and efficient manner than the Democrats.  The Republican alternative will be the party of the 500 billion dollar stimulus package, mini bailouts and reluctant takeovers. 

Politics has devolved into talking points, key words and purposeful ambiguity.  It really is less complicated than that.  What do you believe and what will you do if elected?   I’ve taken the liberty of preparing some remarks for you.  Try them out.  I think people could vote for this kind of Republican.

Republicans believe every individual has differing medical and insurance needs.  They differ from age-to-age, by occupation, financial circumstance, ethnic and genetic susceptibility and geographic location.  Those needs differ not only from person to person but also change throughout one’s own lifetime.

No political body possesses sufficient knowledge or authority to make those personal decisions.  Do you need medical insurance more than graduate school, more than a new house or a truck?   The Republican proposal will make all physician and hospital services, medications and insurance costs dollar-for-dollar deductible from gross income whether you itemize deductions or not.  All medical expenditures will be paid with pre-tax income.  Individuals will choose how much risk to take, how much insurance to buy and what services to contract for directly.  This is as it should be.  Choice, without the trillions.

The special circumstances relating to the chronically ill and the indigent will be debated separately from this reform and will be implemented incrementally.  We welcome the President’s embrace of efficiencies and will test them by incorporating them into the Medicare program.    

 If the voters are kind enough to return us to the majority, we promise to confine our activities to the responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution.  The constitution requires change from time to time, but that responsibility falls to the voters, not the politicians.  We promise not to use the vast resources of government to retaliate or to reward.  The ninth and tenth amendments will guide our thinking and restrain our ambitions.  The Republican party will be humble and serve the citizens, not parent or police them.

Call me.  I’d love to talk.

The burden of omniscience

We expect our presidents to be know-it-alls.  That personality type seems drawn to the job.  This malady usually moderates in the aftermath of elections.  Faced with a skeptical opposition, surrounded by loyal, but practical supporters and a dispassionate, inquiring press, the president is constrained.  The message is always the same.  You are a leader, not a king.

Until now.  The "thrill down my leg" and "Obama, above it all, like God" moments could undermine any man's humility and seem to have scrambled President Obama's.  We saw early evidence at the convention when he spoke the words "This is the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed and the planet started to heal.”

Unfortunately, the only lasting remedy for the omniscience phenomenon is voter sanity.  Control of both houses and a filibuster-proof majority in the hands of a sitting president, any president, is a bad idea.  It reinforces the delusion, rather than disarming it.  Worse, it fuels the impulse to act without caution rather than suppressing it.    

The press, having campaigned for this president, is caught in a trap of their own making.  They defend his initiatives today, more in their own defense than the policy's.  The principled opposition is toothless because they campaigned and governed as nanny-state lite for the past twenty years.  The only plausible opposition comes from conservative Democrats, but they want to get elected too.  Opposing the stimulus and health-care reform probably doesn't help many of them.

The country has survived the omniscience phenomenon in the past because it was purely a politician's disease.  It is potentially more problematic this time because the president's delusion is shared by many voters and the press.  If the country believes this president to be omniscient, we had better hope that he really is.

The president said “They (opponents) would maintain a system that works for the insurance and drug companies while becoming increasingly unaffordable for families and businesses.”  How is it working for them, if, as the president acknowledges, their customers are less able to afford their products?

The president later said “Let me repeat that.  If you like your plan, you will be able to keep it.”  It would have been more accurate to say….If your plan survives the coming reform, you will be allowed to keep it.

Mr. Obama further assured the public that “Each bill provides a public option that will keep insurance companies honest, ensuring the competition necessary to make coverage affordable.”   Read that statement carefully. It is breathtaking in its arrogance.  The government’s remedy, aka the public option, will prevent companies from following their dishonest predilections.  This government-generated honesty will then produce the competition that evidently is lacking now

Line item veto for Catholics.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend observed in a Newsweek editorial on July 9, 2009 that President Obama’s agenda better represented the views of American Catholics than the Pope’s.  The political analysis may be correct and if the Pope were the chief lobbyist for the America Catholic laity, relevant.  But in the context of religious belief, her observations are more an indictment of Catholics than the Pope.

People, in and outside the Catholic church, debate the right or wrongfulness of war, euthanasia, stem-cell research, abortion and capital punishment.  The conclusions drawn are influenced by reason, ethics, politics and yes, faith.  Only in recent years, would it be considered acceptable to co-opt the mantle of one’s faith to deride it.

The faith she references is an ocean wide and an inch deep.  Faith has political currency today and both the left and the right are in the market for a prominent Catholic to carry their water.  Kennedy Townsend fits the bill for the left.  Townsend notes that “polls bear out the fact that Catholics do not want the Vatican to tell them what to think.” 

She thinks that the Pontiff “could learn from Obama’s style of respectful disagreement,” yet she wants more.  She sees the Pope’s respectful disagreements less charitably.   Rather than being the voice of Church teaching, she envisions the Pope’s proper role as a celebrity endorser for progressive Catholicism.

The modern faithful worship a more “user friendly” God than the one introduced to us in the Baltimore catechism.  This God isn’t pushy, knows his/her place and doesn’t much interfere.  A God more “invented” than revealed, endorsing our decisions but not influencing them.  He appears all over the political map.   The Almighty has strong pro-gun and anti-immigration leanings in the South and holds an equally passionate (and divine) position in support of assisted suicide farther west.

We could successfully transform the Pope into a mere conduit for the current leanings of the faithful.  In so doing, we make the Pope into the Press Secretary for Catholicism.  There is no going back from that point.  The credibility of the Papacy derives largely from its willingness to be pro-actively tone deaf to the politics.

An American Catholic politician who proposes that the shepherd should follow the flock is akin to an anti-civil rights Democrat or pro tax increase Republican.    

Townsend can legitimately borrow the Kennedy aura to wax on things political and frankly, she should be commended for her passion.  If she correctly portrays the state of Catholic political thought, it should be so acknowledged.  As a political citizen, she is on solid ground.  As a person of faith, she is way out on a limb.