The Spending Freeze

One thing lost in all the reaction to news that President Obama will propose a spending freeze tomorrow night is the real question whether he will do anything meaningful to see it enacted. His modus operandi to date has been to allow congressional leaders complete autonomy in formulating and passing their favored legislation. Pelosi, Reid and others in the Democratic leadership have been the ones doing the work on the "stimulus," cap and trade, and now health care while the president has sat on the sideline doing little more than giving speeches and campaigning around the country on their behalf.

Why then is anyone to actually believe that President Obama will stand up to Congressional Democratic leaders and pressure them to enact and follow something that is inimical to their perpetual rush to expand the size, scope and reach of the federal government?

Given his record, there is absolutely no reason to believe this. Quite to the contrary, the only realistic expectation is that the spending freeze will be a nice proposal met with ringing applause that will be immediately forgotten as soon as he gets into his limousine and rides his motorcade back to the White House.

The president simply has no will or desire to compel liberals in Congress to do something they do not want to do. He never has.

Liberal vs. Conservative Populism

President Obama's response to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United last week helpfully illuminates the distinction between the brands of populism practiced by the Left and Right. (Actually you could even say it illuminates the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative in how they view the relationship between citizen and government.)

The President:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.  It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.  This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.  That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue.  We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.  The public interest requires nothing less.

Liberal populism (like its conservative counterpart) decries the vulnerability of the people and finds the necessary remedy (unlike its conservative counterpart) in government action to protect the people from predators such as big business, insurance companies, poverty, etc. It is expressed in a way that envisions individuals and society as intrinsically and at all times vulnerable and thus forever in need of protection from a paternal government. Without government intervention and regulation society is left to the mercy of nefarious and usually faceless forces, with individual's being constantly exploited and their "positive liberty" denied.

This explains President Obama's negative reaction to the Court's decision. Without the federal government limiting the ability of corporations and other powerful interests to buy ad time in the media around election time, the votes of the people will be compromised by big money. This is the same rationale that underwrites so many hallmarks of contemporary government such as the minimum wage, affirmative action, seat-belt laws, and the proposed individual mandate in health care. Government is indispensably necessary to protect the individual in everything.

Conservative populism is the opposite. While its expression also bemoans the vulnerability of the people it sees the source of that vulnerability to be an extravagant and overweening government. This is the ascendant form of populism in America today, built upon resistance to a federal government that is spending billions upon billions of borrowed dollars and that is trying to force through a radical health-care bill that will dramatically alter the relationship between citizen and government. Adding to this popular ire is the fact that Congress is formulating this "reform" on a strictly partisan basis behind closed doors and that congressional leaders are using special favors and buyoffs directed to swing congressmen and senators to pass it on strictly party-line votes.

As is the case here, conservative populism is a reaction against a distant, over-bearing government out of touch with the people. It is the large and ever-growing Tea Party movement, a mass antagonist to the exact same paternal government – the nanny state – that liberals believe is necessary to protect the people. The major thing conservative populism believes that individuals and society must be protected from is government itself, especially a government that seeks to inject itself into every facet of individual and civic life.

This is what Ronald Reagan succinctly expressed when he declared in the previous era of ascendant conservative populism that "government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem."

This is the clear distinction between liberal and conservative populism. The former believes the people need protection from their government in everything. The latter simply believes the people need protection from their own government.

Listen to Yourselves

Democrats in Washington have sought to demonstrate their bona fides with regular Americans over the past year (as they have simultaneously showed contempt for them in their health-care drive) through railing against the greed and avarice of the nation's banks. Trying to capitalize on Americans' increasing economic frustration, such luminaries of our country's ruling party as President Barack Obama and Rep. Barney Frank have suggested new taxes on the banks in light of news that more bonuses will be enriching the pockets of many a banking executive.

In the historical pantheon of political demagoguery this iteration is fairly feeble. What it does demonstrate though is the cognitive dissonance that has plagued Washington Democrats in almost all of their ventures since they assumed complete power one year ago. It should not take the critical thinking skills of much more than a high school freshman to figure out that what is being inveighed against implicitly condemns what is being proposed.

Think about it: if America's banks and bank executives are really as greedy and immune to the broader public interest as those at the highest levels of elected government say they are, then why in the world would you tax them? A greedy entity concerned solely with its own profit will not absorb the increased costs incurred by these taxes. They will not pay an extra dime.

Instead the increased costs will be passed down to the bottom of the chain, in the form of increased fees on regular Americans. This is true of any increased costs, whether through direct taxation or regulation, that Washington has and will try to levy on the higher institutions of the American economy. It is the American consumer most affected, not the fat cat sitting in a leather chair with a Christmas bonus in his pocket.

Should the president and Rep. Frank have their way, the long arm of the government will simply reach deeper into the pockets of all Americans, albeit in an indirect way.

Affordability, Not Access

Of all the flaws present in the president's and Congressional Democrats' approach to health-care reform, one of the more fundamental ones is the avenue through which they have approached it, which has been as a matter of access. Constantly citing the millions of Americans currently without health insurance, they propose decreasing that number through a "public option" in which the federal government will provide health-insurance and/or through an individual mandate that will compel Americans to buy a specific kind of policy or pay a fine.

The problem with addressing access in this direct manner is that it will lead to a myriad of problems like government rationing, higher insurance premiums, exacerbation of an already exploding national debt and, most worrisome, diminished individual freedom.

President Obama and Congressional Democrats ought to alter course. Instead of trying to remedy the problem of access to health-care through the federal government they should attack health care's growing un-affordability. The advantage of doing this is that it will reduce the costs of health-insurance for those who already have it while also indirectly addressing the problem of accessibility. The reason for this is that cheaper health-insurance is health-insurance that is open to a greater number of Americans.

Two obvious solutions stand out.

One is to strike down the legal restriction that prevents individuals from buying health insurance policies across state lines. Doing so will give relief to people who live in states with high insurance premiums by empowering them to shop across the nation for more affordable alternatives. This will also create an increased atmosphere of competition that will in turn exert downward pressure on medical insurance costs everywhere.

The second solution is to enact long overdue tort reform. Putting an end to outrageous rewards in medical malpractice cases will immediately begin to decrease the price of insurance and medical care by simultaneously decreasing the liability insurance that physicians are being forced to pay under the present system. Right now doctors are either priced out of their practice or are compelled to pass their liability costs on to everyone else through higher fees.

The advantage of these two reforms is that neither will require exponential increases in federal spending or the creation of dozens of new governmental boards, commissions, and bureaucracies. What they will do is lower the costs of health-insurance and thus make it available to the millions of Americans who cannot currently afford it.

Accordingly, if giving every American access to health insurance is the national and moral imperative Washington Democrats declare that it is than they must waste no time in adopting these reforms. The reality presented by their current proposals – which all amount to a stunning increase in the size and reach of the federal government – promise only to make health-care more accessible in theory, not in actuality.

Only by attacking the rising costs of medical care will the president and Congress accomplish what they have set out to do and make quality, affordable health-care accessible to all Americans.