Harry Reid and what's wrong with Washington

Andrew Johnson, writing at The Corner:

Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have believed that the ends justified the means when he used the Senate chamber to level unsubstantiated accusations against the Koch brothers and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

In his first television interview since announcing his retirement last week, Reid shrugged off criticism that his infamous claim, without any evidence, that Romney never paid any taxes was “McCarthyite” and a reflection of what is wrong with Washington.

“Well, they can call it whatever they want,” a coy Reid told CNN on Tuesday. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

This is a but a modest example of the cynical and shameful way Harry Reid does business. He is a liar and a bully, and a particularly loathsome human being. He is, indeed, "a reflection of what is wrong with Washington."

He is a reflection of something else, however, which is far more troubling. He is a reflection of us.

Consider that Reid's lack of character is no secret. There's a reason they call him "Dirty Harry." Yet his Nevada constituents have endorsed his corruption each election for nearly three decades. His Democratic colleagues have repeatedly chosen him as their leader, granting him one of the longest runs as Majority leader in Senate history.

Now, as Reid retires, will come the praise and honorifics. We can look forward to magazine articles, television segments, and even books lauding his effective leadership and unwavering dedication as a public servant. The lies and corruption will be largely be ignored or, worse, lauded as hallmarks of his "tenacity" and "fierce commitment" to fighting for those who couldn't fight for themselves. Good Ol' Harry. He may have been a thug, but that's what it takes to get anything done in Washington!

I'm tempted to document how the vast majority of liars, bullies, and thugs seem to amass on the political Left, and how Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) enable, support, and endorse them. But I don't want to distract from this one, somber point:

Yes, Harry Reid reflects what is wrong with Washington. But who sent him there? Who gave him all that power to corrupt and abuse? The thing is that Harry Reid, and all the other miscreants in Washington are, in every sense of the word, our representatives. They reflect us. And that is what's wrong with Washington.

Think it over, then do as you're told

Washington Times:

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it would allow insurers to issue until October 2016 health plans that do not meet Obamacare regulations, pushing back another Affordable Care Act deadline well past November's midterms.

Facing the prospect of another wave of cancellation notices this fall, the administration took even further action to mitigate the blowback from President Obama's broken promise that all Americans could keep their health care plans under Obamacare.

Not long ago, congressional Republicans attempted to pass legislation which would have made changes to ObamaCare. Obama fought this legislation, insisting that ObamaCare is "settled law." This made no sense, of course, since Congress has the constitutional authority to pass new laws. A law is only "settled" until Congress says it's not. (The president has veto power, of course, but the point stands: there is no such thing as settled law as Obama would have it.)

Since then, Obama has made dozens of changes to what he insists is "settled law," all without these changes being first voted on by Congress. The president has no authority to make or change laws on his own, which means that in addition to being a liar and a hypocrite, Obama has repeatedly violated the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. In a sane world, he would be impeached for this, but we don't live in a sane world.

As the Times article suggests, this latest change, allowing insurers not to obey "settled law" until after the 2016 presidential election, is politically motivated. Democrats own ObamaCare, and they can't afford to have millions of cancellation notices sent out prior to a big election. They say otherwise, of course, but the rationale they give is completely transparent:

“We’re extending this to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them and their families,” a senior administration official said, briefing reporters on the major policy change.

Let's walk this through. The law, as written, automatically cancels the insurance policies of millions of Americans and forces them into policies the government says they must have. People are upset about this, as Obama repeatedly promised them the law would do no such thing. ("If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.")

So now comes this delay, pushing the betrayal of that promise up past the 2016 presidential election. And the reason given is "to give people an opportunity to make a judgment about what works best for them." But what will happen after people make that judgement? The government will ignore it, cancel their policies, and herd them into ObamaCare policies anyway! 

We'll give you a little time to decide before we force you to do it our way.

I'm tempted to ask just how stupid they think we are, but we keep electing people who treat us like sheep, so I guess I have my answer.

Market entrepreneurs versus political entrepreneurs

I just watched the first part of Bill Whittle's interview with Dr. Burt Folsom, author of The Myth of the Robber Barons.

Folsom makes an interesting and important distinction that I would like to see work its way into our public discourse: the difference between what he calls market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs.

Market entrepreneurs are those who try to succeed by competing in the marketplace and selling things at a competitive price. Political entrepreneurs are those who try to succeed by using government subsidies or regulations to gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Market entrepreneurs are heroes. They create wealth for themselves by giving value to others. The only way they can succeed is by finding ways to deliver a better product, one that consumers will be willing to voluntarily exchange for their hard-earned money.

Political entrepreneurs are leeches. They use their power and influence to buy government favors and rig the system, typically by getting politicians to give them taxpayer dollars or pass regulations that give them an unfair advantage over the competition. We sometimes call political entrepreneurs crony-capitalists, but that is a misnomer because they aren't capitalists at all and calling them that gives capitalism a bad name.

One of the strongest arguments for small, limited government is that it breaks up the corrupt partnership between political entrepreneurs and the government they need to exploit to succeed. Without government, businesses have no real power over us. If we don't voluntarily buy their products, they go out of business.

This is why political entrepreneurs love a big government with extensive powers. It gives them many ways to bribe, control, and manipulate things for their own profit. A lean government with few powers -- like the one the Founders designed for us -- denies them a way to control us. There is less taxpayer money to steal, and a government that has little power over us is not much good to them.

Chris Christie plays dirty?

Chris Christie is being accused of manufacturing a massive traffic jam as revenge against a Democratic mayor who failed to endorse Christie in his reelection bid for New Jersey Governor. Democrats are outraged.

The governor faced swift and outspoken outrage from Democrats in the statehouse, some of whom saw the emails as the "smoking gun" tying Christie to the closures, as N.J. Sen. Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, who represents the Fort Lee area, put it.

If the accusation is true, Democrats should be outraged, and so should Republicans. We need to crack down hard and fast on corruption and abuse of power in our public servants.
 
We don't yet know all the details, but if they are as presented, and these emails can be linked directly to Christie, it should cost him not only his reelection bid, but his current governorship as well. I don't know what legal or criminal actions would be appropriate, but I'd be in favor of pursuing those as well. If you intentionally use your position to violate the public trust, you should be taken down.

Update: Christie responds:

What I’ve seen today for the first time is unacceptable. I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge.

One thing is clear: This type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my Administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions.