They doubtlessly believe their own rhetoric - politicians campaigning for high public office, that is. Dreams, promises, positions on controversial issues, exaggerating differences between themselves and their opponent; it's all part of campaigning. Whether they are left, right, or center on the political spectrum, all genuinely believe they have the best interests of their constituents at heart.
But during each race one candidate wins, even those who are not expected to, and some who may not expect to, such as Donald Trump, who has never so much as sat on a board in which he was not in total control.
All those dramatic, controversial campaign promises that so distinguished himself from his opponent and commanded media attention - Trump was not the first with this strategy, but his set a new standard in outrageousness. The wall on the border, prosecuting his political opponent, legalizing torture, deporting immigrants en masse, bringing coal mining back, ripping up treaties, eliminating Obamacare - the list goes on.
But whaddaya know - he not only won the election, but his fellow Republicans will control both chambers of Congress, and he will have a conservative Supreme Court to cooperate with him in doing whatever he wants. Maybe, that is. Governing, even with a friendly legislature, is different than campaigning.
As CEO of his financial empire, if Trump wanted to spend some dough, he could do it. As president, it's different; spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. It helps Trump that the House is in friendly Republican hands. But Speaker Paul Ryan may not see some things Trump's way.
But it's more than just originating spending bills. When one party controls all three branches of government, that party owns the responsibility for action, and the results.
Trump's view of the world has to be different now than before Nov. 8. He has wisely decided not to prosecute Hillary, not that it's his call anyway. It would be foolish, and counterproductive, for him to push the issue.
Marine Gen. James Mattis, ostensibly under consideration for Secretary of Defense, has wisely counseled Trump against use of torture, and he seems to be listening. Let's give him credit if he doesn't keep that ugly campaign promise.
The Republican House of Representatives has voted some 60 times - who's counting anymore? - to repeal Obamacare. It was easy enough for House Republicans to vote to deprive health care of 20 million people as long as they knew it wouldn't get through the Senate, and if it did, the president wouldn't sign it.
But now, barring filibuster, repeal of Obamacare will get to the president, and he promised to sign it - and replace it with an unspecified plan that is wonderful and less costly.
But wait - in spite of all the Republican trash talk, 20 million people now have access to health care that they didn't have before. The provisions requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and enabling kids to stay on parents' plans until age 26, are popular.
In contrast, the provisions for mandatory insurance are not popular. But the mandatory insurance provisions are necessary to make the plan workable. The basic principle of insurance is to spread the risk, hence the requirement of the young and healthy to purchase insurance. Besides, if they don't, and unexpectedly get racked up through accident or illness, the costs of their care get incorporated into the insurance bills for the rest of us.
The combination of the goodies and the unpopular mandates are the heart of the Affordable Health Care Act.
The critics, after all their griping, have put forth no viable alternative. They didn't have to as long as there was no danger of the ACA being scrapped. Meanwhile, it was a useful stick with which to beat Obama and the Democrats.
There has been some idle babble about "cross border competition" for insurance companies, and additional nonsense about "health savings accounts." Both these "alternatives" are bogus. It would be helpful if the media elite would question Ryan about how "cross border competition" would have insurance companies scurrying to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Or, how average working families, struggling to meet everyday expenses, could possibly put aside enough in a health savings account to cover a prolonged hospital stay.
There has been vague talk of "high risk pools" and lowering the cost of premiums by allowing high deductible policies. To retain the pre-existing conditions provision, such a "plan" would no doubt need a mandatory provision to make it economically viable for insurance companies. As some wags have suggested, this sounds like "Obamacare light." Keep the popular provisions along with the mandatory requirement to make it work - and call it something else. Presto. Campaign promise kept - you got rid of Obamacare, more or less. And everybody is "insured," however inadequately.
Early on, hard core Republicans were criticizing Trump for not being a "true conservative." He promised to retain Social Security and Medicare. On this, he can get cooperation from Democrats.
Ryan has long wanted to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Democrats have strongly opposed privatization of these programs. We will see if Trump retains his promise to keep these programs intact, even if it means working with Democrats.
Some voters have expressed fear that Ryan might adopt Trump's views. It should be far scarier, especially for Trump's older voters, that Trump might adopt Ryan's views. If that happens, you can say goodbye to Medicare as we know it. An ominous sign is that Trump's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Tom Price, is known for not only vigorously opposing Obamacare, but for favoring privatizing Medicare.
Ryan is elated with the nomination of Price. Does this signal Trump's swing toward Ryan's views on eliminating Medicare as we know it?
Or will Trump keep his promise, especially to his older supporters who depend on Medicare, to leave it untouched?
Governing is indeed different than campaigning.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
But during each race one candidate wins, even those who are not expected to, and some who may not expect to, such as Donald Trump, who has never so much as sat on a board in which he was not in total control.
All those dramatic, controversial campaign promises that so distinguished himself from his opponent and commanded media attention - Trump was not the first with this strategy, but his set a new standard in outrageousness. The wall on the border, prosecuting his political opponent, legalizing torture, deporting immigrants en masse, bringing coal mining back, ripping up treaties, eliminating Obamacare - the list goes on.
But whaddaya know - he not only won the election, but his fellow Republicans will control both chambers of Congress, and he will have a conservative Supreme Court to cooperate with him in doing whatever he wants. Maybe, that is. Governing, even with a friendly legislature, is different than campaigning.
As CEO of his financial empire, if Trump wanted to spend some dough, he could do it. As president, it's different; spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. It helps Trump that the House is in friendly Republican hands. But Speaker Paul Ryan may not see some things Trump's way.
But it's more than just originating spending bills. When one party controls all three branches of government, that party owns the responsibility for action, and the results.
Trump's view of the world has to be different now than before Nov. 8. He has wisely decided not to prosecute Hillary, not that it's his call anyway. It would be foolish, and counterproductive, for him to push the issue.
Marine Gen. James Mattis, ostensibly under consideration for Secretary of Defense, has wisely counseled Trump against use of torture, and he seems to be listening. Let's give him credit if he doesn't keep that ugly campaign promise.
The Republican House of Representatives has voted some 60 times - who's counting anymore? - to repeal Obamacare. It was easy enough for House Republicans to vote to deprive health care of 20 million people as long as they knew it wouldn't get through the Senate, and if it did, the president wouldn't sign it.
But now, barring filibuster, repeal of Obamacare will get to the president, and he promised to sign it - and replace it with an unspecified plan that is wonderful and less costly.
But wait - in spite of all the Republican trash talk, 20 million people now have access to health care that they didn't have before. The provisions requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and enabling kids to stay on parents' plans until age 26, are popular.
In contrast, the provisions for mandatory insurance are not popular. But the mandatory insurance provisions are necessary to make the plan workable. The basic principle of insurance is to spread the risk, hence the requirement of the young and healthy to purchase insurance. Besides, if they don't, and unexpectedly get racked up through accident or illness, the costs of their care get incorporated into the insurance bills for the rest of us.
The combination of the goodies and the unpopular mandates are the heart of the Affordable Health Care Act.
The critics, after all their griping, have put forth no viable alternative. They didn't have to as long as there was no danger of the ACA being scrapped. Meanwhile, it was a useful stick with which to beat Obama and the Democrats.
There has been some idle babble about "cross border competition" for insurance companies, and additional nonsense about "health savings accounts." Both these "alternatives" are bogus. It would be helpful if the media elite would question Ryan about how "cross border competition" would have insurance companies scurrying to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Or, how average working families, struggling to meet everyday expenses, could possibly put aside enough in a health savings account to cover a prolonged hospital stay.
There has been vague talk of "high risk pools" and lowering the cost of premiums by allowing high deductible policies. To retain the pre-existing conditions provision, such a "plan" would no doubt need a mandatory provision to make it economically viable for insurance companies. As some wags have suggested, this sounds like "Obamacare light." Keep the popular provisions along with the mandatory requirement to make it work - and call it something else. Presto. Campaign promise kept - you got rid of Obamacare, more or less. And everybody is "insured," however inadequately.
Early on, hard core Republicans were criticizing Trump for not being a "true conservative." He promised to retain Social Security and Medicare. On this, he can get cooperation from Democrats.
Ryan has long wanted to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Democrats have strongly opposed privatization of these programs. We will see if Trump retains his promise to keep these programs intact, even if it means working with Democrats.
Some voters have expressed fear that Ryan might adopt Trump's views. It should be far scarier, especially for Trump's older voters, that Trump might adopt Ryan's views. If that happens, you can say goodbye to Medicare as we know it. An ominous sign is that Trump's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Tom Price, is known for not only vigorously opposing Obamacare, but for favoring privatizing Medicare.
Ryan is elated with the nomination of Price. Does this signal Trump's swing toward Ryan's views on eliminating Medicare as we know it?
Or will Trump keep his promise, especially to his older supporters who depend on Medicare, to leave it untouched?
Governing is indeed different than campaigning.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
