"Pass it for Ted!" Uhh, no
James Taranto exposes the foolishness of the idea that lawmakers should support a government health care monopoly as a tribute to a recently deceased politician who had advocated for it in the past:
Byrd and Pelosi propose to brush aside the public revolt against ObamaCare, seize control over one-sixth of the economy, and give government life-or-death powers over all Americans--all so that they can pay tribute to their dead colleague. Haven't they heard of a nonbinding resolution?
Ted Kennedy was not a cult leader. He was a lawmaker, democratically elected to represent his constituents. It's hard to imagine anything more outrageously self-indulgent than for his erstwhile colleagues to pay tribute to him by imposing on everyone an expensive, unpopular and potentially deadly scheme of social control. Could Washington be more out of touch?
George Nash draws a useful analogy:
On March 30, 1981, Pres. Ronald Reagan was nearly assassinated. What if he had died that day, before he had persuaded Congress to enact his signature program of tax cuts? Would his liberal opposition on Capitol Hill have given up their philosophical opposition to his agenda? Would they have stood silent if militant conservatives had tried to rush through sweeping tax-cut legislation as a monument to Reagan’s legacy?
Indeed, were a prominent Republican were to die today, would that be a good reason to pass a privatization of Social Security, even if the public were strongly opposed tto it? The Nancy Pelosis of the world would say yes, but color me old fashioned for thinking issues should be decided on their merits, not on peurile emotional appeals.