THE TREATMENT FEBRUARY 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Republicans continue to accuse Democrats of "ramming" or "jamming" health care reform through Congress by using the budget reconciliation process. Put aside all the familiar rejoinders--that Republicans used it all the time to pass their bills, that the reconciliation process merely allows a majority to pass a law, etc. The accusation is misleading in another respect.
If the House votes for health care reform, it will do so by passing the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." That is the bill that will build the infrastructure of reform--including the new insurance exchanges--and provide the vast majority of the funding. In other words, that is the bill that will do most of what reform critics find so objectionable. And it has already passed the Senate with sixty votes.
The two chambers are using reconciliation only for the purpose of enacting changes to the Senate bill--adding a little more money for subsidies, transforming a giveway to Nebraska to funding that helps all states, and so on. Both structurally and financially, it's a tiny fraction of reform. And, as Brookings economist Henry Aaron has pointed out, these are precisely the sorts of changes reconciliation was designed to enact.
5 comments
Yes! Thanks for saying that, Jon. All the ramming/jamming talk is just that. Talk. Here's a thought experiment to prove it: Imagine the House did what it could easily do (procedurally, if not politically), namely pass by majority vote the Senate bill as passed by a super-majority of sixty votes... and then just leave it at that. The vast bulk of health reform would then be sent to the President's desk for signing. Does anyone think for a second the Repubs would then say, "You know what? This bill wasn't rammed or jammed down anybody's throats. Although we disagree with it, we respect its passage and will now shut up and move on"? No, of course not. It's like the old joke about arguing the facts if they're on your side, the law if its on your side... and banging the table if neither the facts nor the law are on your side. In this case, the Repubs argue procedure since the substance is not on their side. That's the only reason.
- redgrimes
February 26, 2010 at 1:54pm
Let the GOP blather. If the Democrats actually lead for a change instead of acting like cowering fools they'll improve their lot. Americans do not like wimps and the Democrats come across as wimps.
- tnmats
February 26, 2010 at 2:21pm
Amen tnmats - just watching Obama say "Well, I'm the President" to McConnell's embarassing whining about equal time was a thrill. We Democrats so rarely flex like that, even though Americans want us to. I have a vulgar button I bought at a San Diego area college last year: Obama with a thought bubble over his head "That's MR. President to you, Cracker."
- WandreyCer
February 26, 2010 at 3:07pm
Vulgar Wandrey? I'm of lilly-white European descent and born/raised in the South. And I like it! Congressional Democrats and the WH could use a few ideas from the NC Democratic party. While the rest of the South usually went for the GOP at the state level, the NC Democrats have held on to the House and Senate along with the governorship for a long time. The NC Democrats can be ruthless in their exercise of power (and corrupt too often too) but they sure to keep the GOP at the state level in their place. Harry Reid and the President should come visit and take some notes.
- tnmats
February 26, 2010 at 3:18pm
Amen again tnmats, I always wondered how NC did it. Vulgarity and power mongering? Sounds like effective politics to me. NC is a wonderful place - a place of all kinds and extremes just like my home state of CA. When I worked on the Hill and lived in DC years ago, Californians and Southerners always gravitated towards each other - like we were ganging up on the snobs. It was great. NC folk were the heartiest.
- WandreyCer
February 26, 2010 at 3:24pm