Pelosi for Minority Leader

Nancy Pelosi is running for minority leader in the House. She should win. Democrats should support her. Republicans should applaud. She deserves to win because she, more than anyone else including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, is responsible for the passage of ObamaCare.

Democrats took a terrible beating in 1994 because they pushed and then failed to pass a national healthcare bill. They took an even worse beating this year, but this time they got something for it. The obstacles to legislative adventures that the Founding Fathers wisely built into the Constitution made it difficult to pass the bill, but they will also make it all but impossible to remove it.

ObamaCare is an ungodly mess. Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass it to find out what is in it. In fact, we have to try to implement it to find out what is in it. We are about to find out. One can be very sure that it will be vastly more expensive than advertised. That, or it will dramatically constrict consumer choices and increase costs for most Americans. Probably it will be the one and do the other.

If Barack Obama has been the man that a lot of voters imagined him to be in 2008, he might have stepped back and taken a fresh look at the problem. He might have encouraged Congress to look at other healthcare systems (say, France) and ask what works and what doesn't. He might have looked for novel solutions. Instead he stood aloof and let Congress create a pile of desires in the form of legislative mandates, desires that Democrats have nurtured long since they stopped thinking about them.

Nancy Pelosi deserves to be the leader of the Democrats in the House because she pushed that steaming pile through Congress. As we indeed find out what is in the pile, she should remain as its visible symbol. She is deeply unpopular among the electorate. Republicans will be glad to have her.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

Until the new Congress convenes, we must contend with a "lame duck" session largely controlled by Nancy Pelosi. I await, with a combination of fascination and fear, this session to see whether or not Pelosi will lead the remaining House Dems on a suicide mission.

Will "they" (and I choose that word with deliberation) attempt to ram through cap and trade, a new value-added tax, permissive immigration reform, and/or other deeply unpopular measures while they still can? Will they "punt" once more on the Bush tax cut extension?

If the Dems really want to further their agenda, they should hold back now, lest they suffer an even more crushing blow in 2012 than they did last week. I see no signs, however, that Pelosi will hold back for any reason. Perhaps she simply can't.

I can see John Boehner salivating even as I finish this rantlet (little rant).

[Bill Fleming]

It's good to see that we finally agree on something.
Dems want Nancy Pelosi in and so do the Republicans.
Perfect. Let the fireworks begin.

[Donald Pay]

Pelosi ought to be the leader of House Democrats because she best represents mainstream Democratic thought. The health care bill was a steaming pile because it contained too many Republican and Blue Dog Democrat ideas. I give Pelosi a pass on that because she had no control over Senators like Bayh and Baucus, who were bought and paid for by the health care industry.

[William]

If Nancy Pelosi represents "mainstream Democratic thought", the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs within a decade.

[Donald Pay]

The Whigs splittered over the question of slavery. It was a appropriate issue to split over, just as the question of wage slavery and corporate rule is today. Get the corporatists out of the Democratic Party and you will see the independents return.

[Bill Fleming]

Donald, I think you and I are probably on about the same page here so I'll throw this just out for the heck of it. I give the Tea Party about 2 years to discover their "inner Democrat." When that happens we will see the third great wave of the American revolution. Meanwhile, let the good times roll.

[William]

BF,

If we're both around to collect in 2 years, I'll bet you a steak dinner that there is no "inner Democrat" lurking in the soul of the Tea Party =|;)

[KB]

Donald: Unions are corporations. Do they have to get out of the Democratic Party too? How about the Sierra Club? If the Democrats split into Corporatists and non-Corporatists, that's all the Democrats in one room and no one in the other.

[Bill Fleming]

William, mark my words, I know a bunch of radical populists when I see 'em.
Those votes can be had, and we're gonna get 'em back. They should never have
sided with the Repubs in the first place.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, pretty sore Don is talking about the oligarchs and the plutocrats...
you know the "ruling class" that the Tea Partiers like to complain about.

[Bill Fleming]

above...pretty "sure" not "sore" but hey, maybe Don's a little sore too.

[duggersd]

I suspect the ol' Br'er Rabbit thing with the briar patch trick from the Republicans being happy to have Nancy Pelosi as Minority leader.

[larry kurtz]

The TEA movement has a half-life of about one election cyclel military expenditures will ensure that. Unchanneled anger leads to suicide or institutionalization. Of course, South Dakota, The Land of Infinite Entropy, will always be the exception.

[Stan Gibilisco]

While in an objective mood (or something approaching it), let me offer the following thoughts ...

1. At least one good thing has come out of Obamacare. I note the law against "recission," where an insurance company could (and sometimes would) seek out errors in applications made years earlier in order to get out of paying a claim. Now, the insurer must prove application fraud. The possibility of this sort of treatment used to really scare me, and actually deterred me from going to a doctor when I probably should have. No longer.

2. I've noticed that I have a lot more time to pay my credit card bill. I think the law that gave me this time came under Pelosi's watch. Knology gives me more time too. It's sad that companies would seek to garner late fees even while damaging customers' credit ratings -- but they can do so no longer. Now I can take a week's working vacation without having to send checks to the credit card company by express mail from Cody, or having to call Knology from Lander to arrange for bill payment by credit card.

Clearly, the Dems have done some beneficent things, and I make this admission as a Republican in most respects. (According to http://www.ontheissues.org I'm a moderate Libertarian. I recommend this site for lots of cool info.)

Pelosi's apparent problem, as I see it, is that she might not be willing to lose a few battles to win the war. Bill Clinton knew how to do that; so would Hillary, I suspect. As for Barack Obama, I can't say. We'll find out soon.

For those of you who pine for the "socialist Utopia," I can offer some consolation. As demographics in this country change -- more elderly baby boomers, in particular -- the demand for entitlements and social services will increase relative to the number of taxpayers available to put money in. Therefore we, as a nation, may have to choose between the "entitlement society" and letting old people eat dog food and live in tents. As a person approaching true senior status, I'd rather have the former than the latter, even if it means we must, to some extent, embrace socialism.

[duggersd]

Stan, about your last comment concerning the "entitlement society". I am not sure how far you are willing to go with that, but there was an idea a few years ago and it is gaining some steam again. Instead of having Social Security be the end all for all, how about allowing citizens to opt out into their own account? The plan Bush proposed would have allowed younger people to opt out and put a portion of their SS into an individual account. Older people would still receive what they were committed to, but younger people would have an account and anything left over would go to their heirs. I thought this was a good idea for my kids and really hope it catches on. Just last month, there were hearings in the Senate to consider confiscating our 401's and giving an annuity like pension. I think there are better ideas than that out there. Social Security is a ponzai scheme.

[larry kurtz]

Obesity is the biggest threat to Social Security, Barnes. There is even enough left in the fund for you to begin drawing.

[Stan Gibilisco]

My ideas would include raising the SS qualification age to 70, implementing some sort of "means testing," and allowing people to opt out (if they choose to do that). However, we'd also need some safety net in case the alternative scheme (stock market or whatever) collapses.

I think that we, as a society, need to get over the notion that people routinely quit working at age 65 or 67 (or, for that matter, at any age) and do nothing of a profitable nature thereafter. Haven't some researchers shown that if a person just quits doing anything of value after they "retire," they go downhill fast?

My dad is 87 and he still goes into his little Mayo Clinic office every weekday for a three or four hours. He always liked his work ... that, too, is key. People should find something they like to do right out of college! Life is so bloody short ...

I, like my dad, happen to like my work well enough that I hope to do it until the day I die, be that at age 67, 87, or 107. Of course, an unforeseen disease or accident could change all that, but my wish is to "work" (it's play, really, but don't tell anybody) and make enough profit so that I never need a penny of social security benefits.

While some people might grouse at paying into a system for decades and then getting nothing back from it in their later years, nothing would make me happier than to remain self-supporting all the way to the end. Let the money go to the people who really need it.

Unfortunately, Social Security is not the only rhinoceros in the rec room. We also have Medicare -- and as I understand it, that's an even bigger animal than SS.

[duggersd]

Stan, my father-in-law worked until he was 87 as a mechanic. He would still be working if his wife did not make him quit. I believe retirement is the number one killer of old people. You are right that this stuff needs to be addressed. I think all of it needs to be on the table.

[William]

I'll second (or third) the concept that "early retirement" is an unintended consequence of the way Social Security (and Medicare) were setup. Originally, based on Americans life expectancy, Social Security and Medicare were targeted toward the last 2 to 3 years. With the increase in life expectancy, we have many people drawing benefits for 2 to 3 decades. Obviously, some people enjoy a "life of leisure" that is supplemented by Social Security (if that's ALL they've got for retirement, they're in trouble) but for most people being productive AT SOMETHING is pretty essential in remaining healthy and happy regardless of how old one is.

BTW Stan, I took the quiz over at Vote Match and for some reason opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens counts as being stongly LIBERAL - ha, ha!

[Donald Pay]

It's real nice that some people like their jobs. That's not the norm and pretending that it is will put any politician who wants to increase the retirement age into a real pickle with "the folks." There is a reason that "Take This Job and Shove It" became a hit, and why it continues to be a highly requested song.

Surveys show that about 1 in 10 people really love their jobs. It is true that older workers tend to like their jobs most, with roughly half saying they like their job. The reason, though, generally boils down to the higher salary that older workers generally get tends to overshadow the negative aspects of the job. Young workers mostly hate their jobs.

Many people feel trapped in their job. Go to any call center and talk to the phone jockeys. Ask them if they want to work that job till they're 70. You're likely to find 1 in 100 like that job. No one wants to be there when they have to get up every half hour to go to the bathroom, because that would not be allowed. But then turnover rates in those jobs are high, so no one is going to last there much over two years anyway.

People who want to increase the retirement age aren't really thinking very deeply into what that means. It's a dumb, anti-business and anti-family idea. These late 60s workers would be carried on their employers' health plans. That's going to increase premiums to other workers and to the businesses employing them. It will vastly increase age discrimination lawsuits, because businesses now already lay off older workers if they think they can get away with it. It will mean fewer grandparents available for child care. Many retired people are important volunteers for many agencies and churches.

[KB]

Donald: being the one in ten who likes his work, I am less hesitant to endorse delayed retirement. You are surely right that it's anti-family to raise the retirement age. It's anti-family to require people to work at all! Why not just abolish employment? That will relieve businesses of the burden of paying for health plans and they can't fire older workers if they have no workers at all.

Still, when even the French find no alternative to raising the retirement age, that tells you something mon ami. Someone has to cook the food at Deny's and clean the shuffle board court and make sure that Matlock reruns keep coming. When people keep working a bit longer they keep paying into the system. That maybe anti family but it cannot be a net loss.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"Surveys show that about 1 in 10 people really love their jobs. It is true that older workers tend to like their jobs most, with roughly half saying they like their job. The reason, though, generally boils down to the higher salary that older workers generally get tends to overshadow the negative aspects of the job. Young workers mostly hate their jobs."

Donald, you remind me that my good fortune boils down in large measure to sheer good luck. For that reminder, I thank you and the Higher Powers, whoever or whatever we all might imagine them to be ...

That said, I see no reason why anyone, even people who have spent 40-plus years at jobs they hate, can't do something profitable after age 65 or 67 or 70. I don't think we should force them to make a profit (remain "socially viable units" or SVUs), but maybe some sort of positive incentive, such as a tax break, could encourage such activity.

I know at least two folks that hate their jobs because, as far as I can tell, they hate to work, period. One would rather lie around and get drunk; the other would rather play video games and get stoned. As an alcoholic in recovery (22 years sober), I realize that substance abuse both causes and results from their idleness -- a vicious circle. Meanwhile the entire society goes on enabling them. Unless they change course, miserable, early deaths likely await them, underwritten by you and me. I find it difficult to cry too many tears for them, but then too, I would not want to live in a society that would turn them out to die in the street.

[Donald Pay]

KB, if you're looking at the SS figures, you're acting like a nose-picking bean counter that misses a huge part of the picture. You really have to look at what retirement means to real people and what that means for the entire economy, not just for SS. I really think there must be a more thorough analysis regarding the cost of all 65-70 year olds delaying retirement. Some of these are loss of volunteering, increased child care costs, added health care costs, added workers' comp, increased costs due to discriminstion settlements, etc. Retirement is a time when people draw down accumulated wealth and circulate money into certain sectors of the economy. How much of that wealth would not be circulated and which economic sectors would be hit? I suspect South Dakota tourism would take a big hit. Sports equipment would take a hit, as would craft and hobby stores. A lot of delayed maintenance and home projects get done in retirement years. You really need to get out of the ivory tower and mix with real folks.

[duggersd]

Donald, one of the greatest things about this country is people can go out and create their own job. Also, people can delay their retirement or not. It is their choice and should not be up to the government. My father-in-law is a great example. Since his wife made him retire, I see him aging much faster than he did while working. When it comes to SS the problem we are dealing with is the funds just are not there. Somebody is going to have to make some tough, unpopular decisions. You can point to a non-existent trust fund all you want, but we will see in a very short time, if not already seeing more people take money from SS than what is being put into it. And there is not money in the trust fund to make those payments.

[George Mason]

Congratulations KB; According to Donald you are now both a racist and a nose picker. Perhaps we have a new class liberals can feel morally superior to, nose picking racists. From my subjective view, the great majority of people I deal with and work with on a daily basis enjoy what they do. Perhaps it is because we can all see tangible results and realize actual accomplishments. Perhaps the people who don't like what they do are the ones who have time to fill out surveys or are marxists holed up in their warrens typing polemics.

[Gabi]

before that Janet Reno was out of control and led some rellay dumb crusades. I do think clinton was a better president than Bush though, but he certainly made choices that I don't support. That doesn't make them equal.Bush used intelligence gathered by a spying operation specifically created out of the pentagon by Cheney and Rumfeld because they were unwilling to trust the CIAs assessments. There was plenty of intelligence that was exactly on target with its assessments of both Iraq's current capabilities and its intentions. They intentionally sent different people, outside the intelligence community to gather evidence in favor of their position regardless of how poorly sourced it was, then dismissed concerns of the CIA who told them it was bunk. Trusting Chalabi was just inane, and plenty of people knew it. Like the committee said, they knew the evidence was bad, tenet told them so, and they still dumped it on the US people and the UN.But to be fair, I think there were democrats who were knew just as much, and bear just as much of the burden.Clinton and Albright clearly understood that Saddam did not pose a great enough threat to engage in an all out war to remove him. The sanctions and no-fly zones were working and the NIE reflected that. Cheney felt that the CIA did not have accurate information because he didn't trust them after they didn't warn us of the previous invasion of Kuwait. Not to mention that neither Cheney or Rumsfeld liked Tenet. That's not a failure of intelligence, it's a failure of leadership.I'm actually in the process of writing something up about how I'm concerned about Obama's recent changes in position. It's understandable to make considered changes in light of new information, but these changes seem like pandering, and I hate pandering. I'm also deeply annoyed by the ongoing pure political game of screwing around with policy concerns for the sake of securing seats and making a good run at the presidency at the expense of the people.FWIW I support the supreme court's decision on Heller. Although I do think the reasoning was a little wonky by Scalia, especially since It also seemed like a rellay loose and incomplete ruling that's going to open the door to a lot of gun regulation challenges in court which ultimately are going to end up back in front of the supremes. Seems like you'd want to just knock it out and define exactly what is and isn't allowed per the constitution.