He is a man of sense who does not grieve for what he has not,
but rejoices in what he has.
Epictetus
A Day of Infamy:
House Democrats Pass Corrupt Senate Democrat Health Bill 219-212
or You Breached Trust of the American People: You Own the Health Bill
First, let us review certain landmark legislation, in all cases with the GOP in the minority:
The House approved the Medicare bill on a vote of 313 to 115, including 65 Republicans -- nearly half of the GOP caucus at the time. The Senate approved the measure by 68 to 21, including 13 of the 27 Republicans.
Social Security passed the House in 1935 by 372 to 77. On that vote, 77 Republicans joined the majority and 18 Republicans opposed it. In the Senate, the vote was 77 to 6, with 5 of 19 Republicans in opposition.Then there was the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Trying to blame the fact that this bill did not earn a single GOP vote in either the House or Senate on the backs of the GOP (which FNC's Geraldo Rivera termed shameless partisanship), as Dr. Phil McGraw might say, "Get real!" Democrats hold huge, almost unprecedented margins in both the House and the Senate. In fact, 34 Democrats voted against the bill--making opposition bipartisan, and the margin of victory was well within within the number of holdout pro-life Democrats whom won political cover by demanding a largely symbolic executive order by President Obama. In fact, the Hill send out an email earlier yesterday saying that without a Stupak deal, the bill would fail.
The reason that the bill failed to win a single Republican vote, including the centrist Maine senators, fundamentally deal with both substance and process. Substantive grounds included the nature and scalability of taxes and spending in a fragile economic recovery, and principled opposition to mandates/regulation (including constitutional issues where progressives have interpreted the commerce clause as a blank check authorization of federal authority, essentially gutting the tenth amendment); and the level of federal entanglement with traditional state regulatory authority. Process grounds include the corrupt Senate deal making (the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator-Aid, the Bismarck Bank Deal, the Union Exemption, etc.) and the systematic rejection of GOP inputs by Democratic leaders and/or along party-line votes. In fact, House Minority Leader John Boehner challenged Speaker to allow for a vote on the GOP health care reform plan.
The resistance from the GOP also was based on a hyped crisis and "smoke and mirrors" accounting. Under what rational circumstances was funding a new entitlement, purportedly to cover up to 15% of Americans, whom, for whatever reason, elect to pay for traditional fee-for-service and cannot be turned down for emergency care on basis of inability to pay, a bigger priority than resolving ACTUAL funding crises of existing entitlements of social security and Medicare and with states already struggling to cope with existing Medicaid cost share burdens? Then we have unrealistic Medicare cost cuts (particularly given the fact that we have a recurring "doc fix" problem because of an inability to manage Medicare costs) which are being used as a captive loan to cover new entitlement program costs: Does anyone really believe that the Democrats are going to shutter the program off if costs explode or there is a shortfall in expected revenues?
The Republicans also have issues with the lack of transparency, obvious from the very nature of an over-2000 page bill, which by its very form defies the rule of law, not to mention the likelihood of unintended consequences and moral hazard. If you listen to the progressive Democrats, they are trying to sell this based on limiting premium increases, heavily subsidized high risks, prescription drug so-called doughnut holes, and out-of-pocket expenses; they are expanding eligibility for Medicaid. We see no sharing of health risk, no vested interest of the health consumer whom has no intrinsic motive to hold down costs. There were ways to cut down relevant program costs--by focusing on catastrophic expenses, by expanding policyholder choice to bypass special interest benefit mandates, by allowing small businesses to pool across state lines and self-insure (like big businesses do), by leveraging on existing state regulatory frameworks and programs, including high risk plans, and/or by expanding equal protection tax benefits.
Finally, proponents are wildly exaggerating the accomplishment of Obama and Pelosi in passing the first major entitlement in 4 decades (if we look beyond the Medicare drug benefit passed in Bush's first term). Anyone who believes that the corrupt Senate bill passed last night by the House has any relationship to what Obama and Pelosi originally envisioned has lost touch with reality. Obama during the Presidential campaign opposed mandates and limiting the tax advantage basis of Cadillac health care plans (particularly enjoyed by union members); in fact, Obama heavily criticized McCain during the 2008 general campaign for advancing a related policy (it was the most heavily run ad run in the Baltimore area during the general campaign--I wrote posts about it at the time). The Senate bill also doesn't have the much-heralded public option plan. The fact is that Pelosi needed almost every progressive vote (absolutely furious over loss of the public option in the Senate bill), lost 34 votes (most of which were centrist Democrats), and required a last-minute gimmick executive order on abortion funding by Obama to provide political cover from allegedly "pro-life" Democrats to carry the day. Why did Pelosi lose 34 Democratic votes for an intrinsically worthy piece of legislation?
A Great Moment in the History of American Oratory
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) gave a stirring, impassioned speech against the House adoption of the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill from the Senate:
Today, we should be standing together, reflecting on a year of bipartisanship, and working to answer our country's call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country.
We have failed to listen to America.
And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents.
And when we fail to reflect that will -- we fail ourselves and we fail our country.
In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land?
The answer is no.
And look at how this bill was written.
Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals, and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people?
Hell no, you can't!
Honorable Mention: Rep. Marsha Blackburn's (R-TN) One-Minute Speech
Freedom dies a little bit today. Unfortunately, some are celebrating.
Bart Stupak (D-MI):
The Judas Iscariot of Pro-Life Congressmen
I had at least some respect for one of the few Roman Catholic Democratic Congressmen whom has actually fought for the pro-life cause in a party known for its uncompromising pro-abortion stance since Roe v Wade. The party has not nominated a single pro-life candidate since that fateful, wrongly decided decision, although reportedly Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pro-life earlier in their political careers, before committing to the pro-choice side for purposes of seeking higher office. In fact, Governor Bob Casey, the late father of the current US Senator from Pennsylvania, was noticeably denied an opportunity to speak in favor of the minority pro-life plank at the 1992 Democratic Convention.
As I noted in yesterday's post, Stupak ended his principled holdout position against Senate bill language in exchange for an executive order essentially echoing that the long-standing Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money on abortion services. As I explained, the likely reason why Stupak couldn't do this through reconciliation is because the Byrd rule enables striking of provisions which are not primarily budgetary (taxes or spending); social policy, like abortion language, would be considered extraneous to budget reconciliation. Fights over non-budgetary matters are part of the normal bill reconciliation process--subject to cloture rules (i.e., Scott Brown's 41st vote, empowering the minority party right to a filibuster). The Democrats have refused to negotiate in good faith with the Republicans on health care.
Hence, Stupak, under huge political pressure by Democrats to support the Senate bill, was looking for a face-saving alternative to give him political cover--and Obama agreed to provide an executive order to that effect. Pro-lifers like myself have seen Stupak's sellout for just what it is. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women's advocacy group, immediately responded by stripping Bart Stupak of its planned Defender of Life award, which was to have been awarded at a third annual gala this Wednesday, and announced it would not support him and his fellow pro-life colleagues whom subsequently voted for the Senate bill in their reelection bids this fall.
Now it was not my intention to repeat myself on Mr. Stupak, except for the fact that the Republicans filed a motion for the House to reconsider the abortion language in the Senate bill, substituting the Stupak language--clearly putting the Stupak alliance on the spot. Stupak was, of course, furious:
"The motion to recommit does not promote life, it is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortion," he said on the House floor, calling the move "disingenuous."Stupak and his fellow apostate pro-life Democratic allies ended up voting against the GOP motion. There is no doubt the GOP saw the motion as its best chance at getting the Democrats to negotiate a bipartisan program outside of the budget reconciliation process. Methinks that Stupak doth protest too much; his alliance made the difference in the Senate bill passing. He had to know that there would be a political price to pay for his last-minute deal with Obama.
Stupak had repeatedly complained about the language in the Senate bill. He was not alone: every mainstream pro-life group had similar concerns. He ended up voting for the bill. He knew that the pro-life movement considers Obama the most radically pro-abortion choice President in history; especially given his stonewalling opposition to the Illinois born alive infant protection act as a state senator and his advocacy of the Freedom of Choice Act. An executive order cannot override legislation--including language in the Senate bill once Obama signs it into law. The best thing Stupak could have done--if he truly wants us to believe that he wasn't himself disingenuous in criticizing Senate language these past several weeks--would have been to push the Democrats into renegotiating a smaller-scale, more focused health reform bill, not settling for a piece of paper that almost every pro-life group considered worthless. At least Judas Iscariat got his 30 pieces of silver; all Bart Stupak got was a piece of paper from Obama. Maybe it's the same piece of paper which Obama used to promise participating in the general election using federal matching funds. Or where he promised no insurance mandates. Or where he promised no taxing of health plans. Or...
But what particularly annoyed me in Stupak's snarky remarks was the way he attempted to portray Democrats as the guardians of preborn life in Congress. This is utter nonsense. First of all, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, whom have consistently voted pro-life planks in their national platforms. Henry Hyde, author of the famous amendment barring the use of federal funds, was an Illinois Republican Congressman. The original Stupak Amendment to the House Health Care Bill last year was principally supported by Republicans--only a few dozen of nearly 260 Democrats supported it; the vast majority of opponents were his fellow Democrats. I'm not attempting to be an apologist for the Republican Party--but what Stupak did was to impugn the integrity of pro-lifers (including myself). The next time, Mr. Stupak, you want to direct fire at hypocrites, why don't you instead direct your fire at fellow pro-abortion choice Democrat Catholics-in-Name-Only on the question of the sanctity of life, like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, name any Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Kathleen Sebelius, Dick Durbin, ...
Political Cartoon
What can I add further? IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez is a genius; he underscores a point I myself have specifically made:
Musical Interlude: Heaven Songs
Ann Wilson and Mike Reno, "Almost Paradise"
Bryan Adams, "Heaven" (an all-time favorite)
Led Zeppelin, "Stairway to Heaven"
Bob Dylan, "Knockin' on Heaven's Door"
