Wednesday, July 19, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday Rush, as usual, proffered a well-informed analysis of what actually transpired in the Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. His rationale includes the obvious rules and protocols of the Senate and also practicalities regarding particular Senators and those influencing them.   

Rush began by describing the POTUS’s current position on the legislation wherein he’s “not gonna own it. Which he’s been saying for months. He said, you know, the smart thing politically for him to do is to let it fail and let the Democrats absorb all the blame. Let Obama and the Democrats take the blame. Just let it fail. But Trump said — as a show of good faith — he was gonna work with people to try to replace it, to repeal and replace it rather than just to let it implode, let it fail.”

With repeal and replace failing, Rush interprets Trump's present actions to possibly mean “he’s just going to sit by and let the thing fail, and that means old Mitch and the boys can go in there and fail to repeal it and that means Obamacare remains the law of the land. This is where it gets interesting. Obamacare is imploding. It is in the process of consuming itself. If Trump follows through and just says, “I’m gonna let it fail,” and we just sit by and watch premiums go up 45, 50% every year… As we watch insurance companies pull out of the exchanges, as we watch the subsidies end, as we watch the exchanges close, as nobody’s able to buy insurance…”

Next, Rush addressed “the Trump opposition in the, quote, unquote, “elite club” known as the establishment,” whom he believes now find themselves in a quandary whereas the election didn’t work out as expected.

“What are they gonna do now? See, the objective in the original design of Obamacare was to fail. But it was supposed to fail with Hillary Clinton or another Democrat in the White House. And, at the moment of failure, it was then to be suggested almost as a brilliant spur-of-the-moment idea, “Hey, why don’t we just go single payer.” Or, “Hey, why don’t we just put everybody on Medicare? Hey, problem solved!” Because, at that time, that point in time, premiums would be out of reach, deductibles out of reach, insurance companies closing down and closing up shop, exchanges closing up shop. So it’d be eagerly demanded, even maybe by the public.”

However, as a result of the election, “now we’ve got Trump who doesn’t want to go single payer, and this the Democrats and the establishment know. So there are two options here, and it’s interesting to note that if you listen to the media and you listen to the Democrats, repealing Obamacare is the worst thing that could be done, but it isn’t. Staying with Obamacare and letting it implode is the absolute worst outcome here. Repealing it means you repeal it. You get rid of every Obamacare law, and that means you start over. But it also raises a question: At what point do you…? Where do you resume?”

Having laid out the current status of the situation from a procedural aspect, Rush then got into unseen underlying pitfalls regarding individual Senators, having as much, or more, influence on their votes as the issue itself.   

Rush’s used talks with Senator Ted Cruz to define the current state of affairs, saying: “Let me set this up by reminding you what Ted Cruz has told me I don’t know how many times. [T]he thing that shocked him more than anything his first few days in the Senate was how 90% of what senators do is get reelected. Ninety percent of their time is spent raising money, organizing fundraisers, dealing with the consultants and all who raise the money, planning the events.

“The other 10%’s being a senator. It shocked him. It was that blatant, that obvious. Why? Because getting reelected is the most important job every senator thinks he has. Probably to a degree this is true in the House, but he was speaking specifically of the Senate. And yet, if getting reelected is the most important thing, then a question occurs to me.

“All of these promises and all of these votes to repeal Obamacare since 2010, now when they have the power to actually do it, they don’t do it, they can’t do it. After all these promises, after all these times being elected on the basis of that promise, and yet they obviously don’t fear the voters in their states nearly as much as they fear something else.”

And that’s where missing pieces fit together regarding the individual votes of Senators, whereas the force driving them most strongly isn’t political affiliation, constituent's satisfaction or particular legislation itself. Not surprisingly, according to Rush, the main worry turns out to be money, pure and simple.  

Regarding those Senators, Rush explains: “They are clearly willing to incur your wrath at reelection time. They would much rather do that than deal with whatever is gonna happen to them if they vote to repeal it. They’re afraid of somebody. They are concerned about somebody or something, but it isn’t you. Despite the most important thing in their lives, being reelected, that’s what you do. So who is it that they’re more afraid of than you? Who is it that they are the least interested in angering?

“Well, yeah, money people, but I want get more specific than that. Of course it’s the money people, the donors and all that, but who are they, and what threat do they have? What threat do they have that can make elected officials more fearful of them than of you? ‘Cause if you don’t show up, whatever else happens is academic. It has to be the fact that whoever it is they’re afraid of can supply them with, in their minds, enough money to win reelection no matter what your opinion of them is.

“But it all circles around money, understandably. And there’s nothing new about that. I’m not claiming to have discovered anything earth-shattering here. But I just find it interesting.”

Now, who specifically “bought” particular Senators votes, when, where, how and why are things that may never be discovered at all. But what is known is that as found in Wikipedia) “lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the "fourth branch of government," as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the "revolving-door" practice of hiring former government officials. It is widely believed to be common practice for politicians to solicit money from lobbying firms in exchange for better access to officials, especially members of the United States Congress, and to buy favoritism in policies.” 

Most interestingly, if Rush is correct about Senators that have been bought, his suspicion may well be confirmed today when all of them will meet with the POTUS for lunch at the White House. 

Republican Representative from Texas, Louis Gohmert put it this way as he spoke to Stuart Varney on Fox Business this morning, commenting on his disappointment in the Republican Party for promising repeal and not staying true to their word. 

Gohmert said: “I love what the president is doing and he's going to have every one of the senators there. I hope, Stuart, the message is going to be … ‘look, you all promised you would repeal it [Obamacare] if you got the majority and you got it. You voted for repeal in the last Congress, and now I will sign it as soon as you vote to repeal it. You better not have been lying to your constituents because you're going to get a chance to vote to repeal and keep your promise; and, if you don't, we’re gonna find somebody that will keep their promises.”

Which means that if money truly is driving the votes of particular Senators, and after the White House lunch with the POTUS, there are still dissenters, they will have exposed themselves. Because, Gohmert got it right when he said they all “promised” they would repeal Obamacare if they got the majority they now have."

Thus, this very afternoon all Senators still refusing  to vote for repeal and replace will be known by the POTUS, the constituents of those dissenters and the voting public in general. And it's those Senators that can then be targeted in the future as one’s placing personal interests above fulfilling the commitments of their jobs. Bringing us back to Gohmert's threat that: "You better not have been lying to your constituents because you're going to get a chance to vote to repeal and keep your promise; and, if you don't, we’re gonna find somebody that will keep their promises.”

That's it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment