Monday, August 10, 2009


The harder the White House and Democrats push this idea, the worse it could get for them. Americans may have arrived at the limit of how much government they want or will pay for. If Barack Obama can't sell more of it, no one can.

So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread “disinformation” about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a “public option” into a federalized universal health care initiative? Report them!!

Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another? ... The mistake this White House continues to make, seemingly on a daily basis, is that they reveal very much what they truly think of freedoms of the American political process. That being “Shut up and let us do it or else”.

The New York Times had an amazing front page story on Thursday which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle. The headline of the story was: “White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost” by David Kirkpatrick.

I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly: >>“Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.”
Whoa! Check Please! How can the words 'industry lobbyists' and 'White House' be in the same sentence? We have been told -- to the point of overdosing on Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) -- that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone. Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House “had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the health care overhaul' but 'had never spelled out the details of the agreement.”

Oh, here we are, in paragraph seven: “The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.”

Embarrassing? Ya think...? It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick's piece: 'Failing to publicly confirm the drug lobby's descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama's reforms.

So let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good.

So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits?

I think I'm beginning to get how this works. It works like, it smells like, it’s just like... Chicago!"

No comments: