The presidential debate is getting bogged down in a petty disputeover which candidate has enough “experience” to run the country,which in reality obscures the most important point of thiselection–what direction will the person elected actually take onany number of key policy questions? The same issues dominate theargument over whether the revolving door between state insurancedepartments and the industry being regulated should be slammedshut.

The other day, I ran a post from Steve Piontek, editor of NU's lifeand health insurance weekly, about how shameless regulators havebecome in negotiating lucrative gigs in the business while they arestill regulating it. Steve called for a two-year ban on anyinsurance industry employment for any of its regulators.

Some who responded to that post brought up the same, oldargument about how you need someone who completely understands theindustry to regulate it. I frankly think that's a bunch of hooey,just as I believe the entire “experience” debate in thepresidential race is a smokescreen to steer voter attention awayfrom what matters most–what the candidates will actually DO once inoffice.

Mr. Piontek's ire was raised when yet another former presidentof the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Alabama'sWalter Bell, gave his notice to join Swiss Re America Holding Corp.Prior to becoming a regulator, Mr. Bell had worked for a lifeinsurance firm. (Click here for that story.)

Sure enough, the revolving door remained in full swing, as lastweek Alabama announced the appointment of yet another formerindustry executive as its new commissioner–Jim L. Ridling, a pastpresident and CEO of Southern Guaranty Insurance Company. (Clickhere for that story.)

Here we go again.

Now, you could argue that Mr. Bell did an outstanding job asinsurance commissioner–good enough to rise to the top at the NAIC,while also leaving his mark on the international regulatory scene.So, why worry about whether he used to work in the business, andthen left to return to the business? He sure seems to know whathe's doing.

So what's the problem? One reason this industry's image is sopoor is that having insurance company officials rotating in and outof office as insurance commissioners makes it appear thatregulators are more on the side of insurers than consumers.

The commissioner's role is to protect the public–from carriersgoing out of business, from leaving gaps in coverage or entiremarkets, and from abusing consumers. Having a former industryofficial in charge is about as comforting to consumers as it is forplayers to have a former owner running The Show as baseball'scommissioner.

The same specious arguments are clouding the really importantissues in the race for the White House. The accompanying cartoon,appearing on the Bartblog, sums up the view ofthose who believe Sen. Obama from Illinois is not qualified to bepresident because of an alleged lack of “experience.” His time inthe Senate and as a community organizer are not only dismissed outof hand by his Republican critics, but shamefully ridiculed.

Frankly, I don't care if Obama was a high school principal. WhatI want to know is where he is going to lead the country.

Will the more “experienced” McCain-Palin administrationguarantee universal health insurance? Will they get us out of Iraqas quickly as Obama would? Would they defend a woman's right tomake her own reproductive choices? Would they insist on creationismbeing taught in science classes?

Would they take global warming seriously? Would they vigorouslypursue alternative energy sources? Would they be multilateral inforeign affairs? What kind of Supreme Court judges would they pick?Would they maintain the separation between church and state, orpush for prayer in the schools? Would they stand solidly behindConstitutional liberties, or toss the rule of law aside in the“war” against terrorism?

You get the picture.

In any case, the whole contention that the President somehow“runs” the government is bogus, anyway. In the one of the few timesI saw eye to eye with President George W. Bush, he described hisrole as being “The Decider.”

A President picks cabinet officers to run their respectivedepartments and key agencies, who present him with options and(hopefully) sound reasons to choose one over the others, with therisks involved and the odds of success and failure clearly laidout. Once the President makes the decision on what policy toexecute, the executive branch goes into action.

The same goes for the White House, which is run by acrackerjack, ramrod chief of staff, not the President himself.

The same could be said for the insurance commissioner. They havea professional staff at their disposal to present them withoptions, risks and rewards. They make decisions based on theavailable information, in the best interests of the consumers theyare sworn to protect.

I'm not saying an insurance commissioner should be willfullyignorant of how the business they regulate works, but to say theymust come from the industry to know what they are doing isnonsense.

“Experience” is overrated, period. We had the most “experienced”team in history helping President Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell,Rice and company had an incredible resume in running anadministration. But what good did their “experience” do thiscountry these past eight years?

The same logic applies to an insurance commissioner appointment.One way or the other, the foxes should not be put in charge ofrunning the hen house, then let out to hunt the hens at a laterdate, no matter how “experienced” they are with hens!

What do you folks think?