Full-time political junkies are often criticized for their cynicism. We're
too blasé, too dismissive of idealism, ideas, hope and plain old do-goodery.
There's merit to this complaint, and I would have more sympathy for it if
Washington were not a cesspool of intellectual reprobates and rent-seeking
whorishness. There's a reason the golden spirit of the high school
overachiever ("and if we all work together, we can make this the best
yearbook ever!") turns to dross in this fetid swamp of institutionalized
asininity.
Take, for a timely example, Medicare Part D, a.k.a. the prescription drug
benefit. If Washington is a sausage factory, then this is surely the most
jumbo of wieners. Here's how it works: Various private insurance firms are
invited to offer competing drug-insurance plans to everyone eligible for
Medicare. Everyone is entitled to the basic program, but they can choose
others if they want, on the assumption that private competition will drive
prices down and that people will pick plans better suited to their specific
needs. It sounds good, though in the process the government created a vast
new universal old-age entitlement at a time when entitlements are greasing
the skids toward a fiscal train wreck.
Recall that President Bush pushed for a prescription drug benefit as a way
to beat Democrats at their own game of "Socialize that Medicine!" ("I'll
take long lines for $1,000, Alex.") The Republican House, that famed bastion
of fiscal rectitude, had for the most part already endorsed such a plan even
before Bush proposed it, though the congressional GOP complains that Bush's
"big government" siren song led them astray. But when Bush sent his proposal
to Congress, it was a humble affair, aimed primarily at the needy. It was
the GOP Congress that removed the free-market gristle from the bill and
poured in pure pork fat, so as to ensure a smoother texture of pure
entitlement.
Meanwhile, Democrats, furious that the Republicans had stolen their issue,
rejected the whole Medicare plan on the grounds that it was an expensive
"giveaway" to Big Pharma and insurance companies. Democrats, it seems,
prefer even more expensive giveaways to the voters. For example, Sen. Dick
Durbin's alternative plan, proposed shortly after Medicare Part D was passed
(and still officially under consideration by the Democrats), never
contemplated that market forces could lead to anything good. So he insisted
that consumers must - must! - pay $35 a month in premiums. It turned out
that competition has made $35 expensive by comparison - one plan costs a
mere $6 per month, and the average is $32. Dick Durbin: granny gouger!