Whoever called politics "the art of the possible" must have had a
strange idea of what is possible or a strange idea of politics, where
the impossible is one of the biggest vote-getters.

People can get the possible on their own. Politicians have to be able
to offer the voters something that they cannot get on their own. The
impossible fills that bill perfectly.

As a noted economist has pointed out, nothing "could prevent the
California electorate from simultaneously demanding low electricity
prices and no new generating plants while using ever increasing
amounts of electricity."

You want the impossible? You got it. Politicians don't get elected by
saying "No" to voters.

Of course Californians also got electricity blackouts and, in order to
deal with the blackouts, a multi-billion dollar surplus in the state's
treasury was turned into a multi-billion dollar deficit, followed by
cutbacks in various other government programs, followed by calls for
higher taxes.

You want the government to create more jobs for people when there is
widespread unemployment? It's been done. During the Great Depression
of the 1930s, the government employed more young men in the Civilian
Conservation Corps than there were in the Army. The money to pay for
all this had to come from somewhere-- and that meant that there was
less money left to employ other people in the private sector. While
jobs created by the government may not have reduced total
unemployment, these jobs increased votes for the administration, which
is the real bottom line in politics.

Are you for "open space" laws forbidding building and also for
"affordable housing"? Don't be discouraged by the fact that severe
building restrictions have sent housing prices sky-rocketing in
community after community.

It may be impossible to have "open space" laws and "affordable
housing" at the same time, but what are politicians there for, except
to figure out ways to give us the impossible?

Palo Alto, California, where housing prices nearly quadrupled in one
decade after severe building restrictions were imposed, also pioneered
in laws mandating that each builder agree to sell a certain percentage
of any new housing "below market."

In other words, they combined "open space" laws with "affordable
housing." Who says the impossible cannot be achieved?

Of course this system can work only where just a fraction of the new
housing is sold "below market." Moreover, the market price of housing
is raised so far above what it was by building restrictions that even
"below market" prices for condominiums in Palo Alto can run to
$300,000 or $400,000.

This is hardly "affordable housing" for people on modest incomes. Only
7 percent of Palo Alto's police, for example, live in Palo Alto--
probably older cops who bought their homes long ago.

But none of that matters politically. What matters is that people in
Palo Alto can feel good about themselves, by being for both "open
space" and "affordable housing." Happy voters are what get politicians
re-elected.

The big political crusade today is for "affordable" medical care
through the government. No one believes that government is just going
to be more efficient, and thereby have lower costs that will be
reflected in lower prices for medications and medical treatment.

It might seem as if adding the costs of government bureaucracies to
the costs of medications and medical treatment would make it
impossible for the total costs to go down. But again, the impossible
is no problem in politics.

Many countries around the world already have government-run medical
care. People who get sick in these countries usually wait much longer
to get treatment, including months on waiting lists for surgery, often
paying in pain or debilitation, rather than money.

High-tech medical devices like MRIs are also far less common in these
countries than in the United States. With medical care as with
anything else, you can always get poorer quality at a lower price,
though that is no bargain, especially when you are sick.

What you may have in mind are lower prices with no reduction in
quality. While that may be impossible, don't expect that fact to stop
politicians from offering it, even if they can't deliver.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/

wrote:


Many countries around the world already have government-run medical
care. People who get sick in these countries usually wait much longer
to get treatment, including months on waiting lists for surgery, often
paying in pain or debilitation, rather than money.

High-tech medical devices like MRIs are also far less common in these
countries than in the United States. With medical care as with
anything else, you can always get poorer quality at a lower price,
though that is no bargain, especially when you are sick.



Utter twaddle.

On Dec 31 2008, 11:02*pm, wrote:
Whoever called politics "the art of the possible" must have had a
strange idea of what is possible or a strange idea of politics, where
the impossible is one of the biggest vote-getters.

Apparently Sowell does not understand the meaning of that old saw. No
surprise. He usually screws up one or two things in every column.

Tartarus