How Low Can You Go? DC's Limbo Principle

The feud between Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., doesn't have the import of the federal government shutdown, but it does shine a light on the Beltway's partisan rancor. If there is a lesson for Washington politicos from this mud fight, then it is this: Don't try to be clever. There will be blowback.

The story begins when Democrats were pushing President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, inserted language into the bill to require that Congress and staff get their health insurance through Obamacare exchanges.

Grassley's amendment didn't explicitly address the government's contribution -- about 75 percent -- toward its employees' health premiums, which is standard practice in employer-paid health plans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner asked the White House to protect the employer contribution. The administration obliged.

Here Vitter saw an opportunity to seem more anti-Washington than his pals in the anti-Washington posse. To the dismay of staffers from both parties, Vitter proposed an amendment to require that White House personnel and appointees get health insurance through Obamacare and to do away with the employer contribution, leaving these federal employees to pick up the full cost.

Maybe Vitter thought that it was good politics to propose what effectively is a $5,000 to $11,000 annual pay cut for Capitol Hill staff members. But if I were in his shoes, I'd be careful walking around corners.

Next it was Senate Democrats' turn to be cute. Anonymous Democrats leaked tit-for-tat phony "draft" legislation to Politico's website. Manu Raju and John Bresnahan reported that Dems were considering three options, starting with an amendment barring the employer contribution to the health insurance of any lawmaker or staffer who a congressional ethics committee has "probable cause" to believe "engaged in solicitation of prostitution."

Say what? The story explained: "Such a hardball move could bring back uncomfortable memories of the 2007 'D.C. Madam' scandal in which Vitter's phone number turned up in a Washington-based prostitution ring. Vitter apologized for committing a 'very serious sin' but did not elaborate."

The second option would deny employer contributions to those involved in "improper conduct" that reflects badly on Congress, and the third would deny the same to lawmakers who voted for the Vitter amendment.

The prank shows why Rutgers University political science professor Ross Baker calls Politico "the bathroom wall of choice" in Washington, where "the Sharpies come out and the nasty graffiti are written."

Democrats could have stuck to the high road and hit Vitter for mandating a backdoor pay cut for the people who keep the Capitol running. Instead, some unknown cut-ups ratcheted up the rancor with a fictional and counterproductive salvo against Vitter.

Next, Vitter soiled the swamp by asking the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Boxer, to investigate whether Boxer, Reid or their staff broke Senate rules. (As Vitter requested, Boxer recused herself in the matter.) It's not clear why Vitter fingered Reid or Boxer.

Vitter's complaint argued that by tying votes to benefits, the Politico ghost amendments constituted "attempted bribery." Vitter also argued that if Reid, Boxer and staff deny that they were involved in "this Democratic intimidation and payoff scheme," the committee should force them to answer questions under penalty of perjury.

Vitter presented no proof that Reid and Boxer were behind the Politico story; nonetheless, after the committee rejected his complaint, Vitter filed a second letter calling for a probe, even as he recognized the "off-chance" -- read: possibility -- that Reid and Boxer had no role in the Politico prank.

Boxer dismisses Vitter's charge as "baseless." In a statement, she noted, "This whole matter has gone from bizarre to surreal. I believe a senator using the Ethics Committee to launch political attacks is unprecedented and outrageous."

It's also not very bright. You can't read Vitter's complaints without reading about the "D.C. Madam" scandal.

"How low can you go?" asked Baker, as he recognized "the limbo principle of American politics."

Baker, a former House Democratic consultant, has dedicated his academic career to studying how congressional committees operate and how chairmen and ranking members work together. Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Vitter is the ranking Republican. How does Vitter work with Boxer after demanding she be questioned under penalty of perjury on his unsubstantiated accusation?

Said Baker, "The cat is out of the bag, and it's very hard to get it back in again."

OBAMACARE CUSTOMER VENTS The monthly healthcare rate before Obamacare was $88. With Obamacare it is $277----more than three times as much as ----an increase of $2,268 per year. I have not been able to translate an increase of $2,268 into a promised reduction of $2,400....not with a swing of $4,668 per year. (Excerpt) dispatch.com ...

===============================

HERE'S ANOTHER DISSATISFIED OBAMACARE CUSTOMER

<><> “The plan that Congress is considering will provide health insurance to millions of Americans who don’t have it and control costs for millions more who do.” — Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, calling for Congress to pass ObamaCare, March 16, 2010

<><> “Right now, unless you and the Obama administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”— Hoffa in a July 2013 letter to Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the top Senate and House Democrats.

==========================================

BAIT AND SWITCH LAWS---WIKI EXCERPT--Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud commonly used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts......even in politics.

First, customers are "baited" by sellers advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items ("switching").

The intent of the bait-and-switch tactic is to encourage purchases of substituted goods, making consumers satisfied with the available stock offered, as an alternative to a disappointment or inconvenience of acquiring no goods (or bait) at all, and reckoning on a seemingly partial recovery of sunk costs expended trying to obtain the bait. It suggests that the seller will not show the original product or service advertised but instead will demonstrate a more expensive product or a similar product with a higher margin.

In the United States, courts have held that the purveyor using a bait-and-switch operation may be subject to a lawsuit by customers for false advertising, and can be sued for trademark infringement by competing manufacturers, retailers, and others who profit from the sale of the product used as bait. However, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Likewise, advertising a sale while intending to stock a limited amount of, and thereby sell out, a loss-leading item advertised is legal in the United States. The purveyor can escape liability if they make clear in their advertisements that quantities of items for which a sale is offered are limited, or by offering a rain check on sold-out items.

===================================================

BAIT AND SWITCH IN POLITICS In lawmaking, "caption bills" that propose minor changes in law with simplistic titles (the bait) are introduced to the legislature with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording (the switch) at a later date in order to try to smooth the passage of a controversial or major amendment.

Rule changes are also proposed (the bait) to meet legal requirements for public notice and mandated public hearings, then different rules are proposed at a final meeting (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public notice and public discussion on the actual rules voted upon.

While legal, the political objective is to get legislation or rules passed without expected negative community review

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.