brett florio

During a wedding reception I attended last night, a conversation I was a part of turned to health care, employee benefits, and taxes. The most vocal of the participants, in between drags of his cigarette, was explaining to those who opposed the individual mandate that they should simply get involved and work to change the laws.

As if that wasn’t quite enough to indicate his willful indifference for any deeper issues (constitutional or otherwise), he then confidently proclaimed:

The majority wants it, and to a certain extent, the majority is always right.

I hadn’t previously agreed with every point this gentleman was making, but I was taken aback by this statement. I interjected something like, “Surely you don’t actually believe that. What about the tyranny of the majority?” Again, up to this point the conversation had seemed sane and intelligent enough, but I’m still in shock from what happened next.

He laughed, long and hard.

And he repeated (while laughing) “the tyranny of the majority,” making it clear he found the very concept laughable. Stunned, I asked him about the holocaust, then slavery, then how he’d feel if the Christian right (whom he’d previously expressed disdain for) was the majority.

I honestly am not even sure how he responded, as I was still completely dizzied by his bellowing laughter. Almost 24 hours later, I’m still confused. Regardless one’s opinion on the recent health care reform legislation, having such a romantic belief in (what amounts to) mob rule paired with the palpable and callous disregard for the rights of a minority population quite frankly terrifies me.

I should probably stop being surprised by the legal and ethical transgressions of our elected officials, just as I should stop being surprised by the transgressor’s colleagues defending him. Sometimes, however, the method used to skirt responsibility amuses me, such as Charles B. Rangel’s claim of ignorance with regard to his most recent ethics committee investigation.

The panel did not find that Rangel knew about the sponsorship, only his staff did, but it concluded Rangel should have known about it. On Friday, the panel released documents showing that Rangel’s aides wrote memos to the congressman, indicating that corporate sponsors were footing the bill. But Rangel denied seeing any of them.

“It said he did not knowingly violate House rules, so that gives him some comfort,” Pelosi said.

Next time I get pulled over by a policeman perhaps I should just explain that I had my eyes closed, so I cannot be held responsible. Or if the IRS informs me that I’ve miscalculated my taxes I can (completely honestly) claim ignorance. I’ll post back here how successful a politician’s defense is when used by the average citizen.

At least I’m not surprised by Rangel’s response, in which “the New York Democrat berated the panel’s leaders on the House floor.” It’s good to know that being indignant and prideful in the face of one’s own misdeeds is still the preferred damage control method of our political elites:

Rangel snapped at reporters: “Why don’t you ask me if I’m going to stay chairman of the committee in light of the fact that we’re expecting heavy snow in New York?”

In a statement later, Rangel was defiant and unrepentant. He called the committee’s report “ill-considered, unprecedented, unfair to Congressman Rangel, and wrong on the facts and the law.”

New York Daily News

On the upside, at least the United States of America has multiple parties, each motivations to expose the others; President Obama has abandoned his support of Rangel; and the freedom of the press to report on political scandals without fear of assassination is obviously a tremendous boon to the freedoms that we do enjoy.

CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.
…

“No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study,” said the New York Times, while the Washington Post declared, “Senate Health Bill Gets a Boost.” The White House crowed that the CBO report was “more good news about what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo.”

Finance Chairman Max Baucus chimed in from the Senate floor that “Health-care reform is fundamentally about lowering health-care costs. Lowering costs is what health-care reform is designed to do, lowering costs; and it will achieve this objective.”

— WSJ

I know it’s often pleasant to lie to oneself, but as a nation I think we could be a bit more honest. Unfortunately, honesty doesn’t seem to be what wins elections. Not sure it ever has. Not sure it ever will.