President Obama said on Wednesday, "The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing reform into law" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1). In a letter sent out by President Obama on Wednesday he stated, "I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts."
I agree with President Obama that Americans deserve a vote on health care reform but not through the reconciliation process. Americans in Massachusetts spoke loudly, remind you Massachusetts has socialized medicine, by sending a Republican to the Senate on the key platform promise to derail Obama-Care. No one disagrees that reform is needed and what is included in the 2700 page bill is not it. It creates over 100 new government agencies, establishes over 50 new taxes, mandates all Americans have health insurance or face fines and/or imprisonment, and does not pass Obama's "Pay Go" pledge.
The Pew Institute put out a poll, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=953, asking Americans what the Top Priorities for 2010 are. The top five are: 1) Economy 83%, 2) Jobs 81%, 3) Terrorism 80%, 4) Social Security 66%, and 5) Education 65%. Health Insurance is tied in 10th at 49% with Military, Energy, and Crime. So when the Obama says Congress owes America to vote on health care reform perhaps he needs to refocus as people are more concerned with other items. But if Obama wants Congress to move forward with a vote then follow the proper legislative process by going to Conference Committee and having both houses of Congress to vote. Yes, reconciliation has been used in the past and each time the average vote for the passage is 67 votes in the Senate. Right now Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) would be lucky to get 51 and the 51st vote may have to be cast by Vice President Biden.
If the health care reform put forth, passed by the House and Senate, is right for America then allow the legislative process, without gimmicks such as reconciliation, run its course. Citizens will contact their representatives to have their opinion heard. To ram it through Congress as is being threatened is not how our Fore Fathers envisioned the Constitution to work when they risked their lives to create. I agree with Obama, let's demand Congress vote without "parliamentary games" and go through the natural process. What is the White House afraid of? The Democrats had every vote they needed last year to pass health care reform but obviously Americans spoke as some within the Democrat ranks could not sign on or get the blessing of their constituents.
Here's the problem, you say they had all the votes they needed last fall and not to use gimmicks. Well, they had 9 more votes than they needed, actually. 60 votes is not the intended number to pass legislation. It's only 51. The Republicans are using gimmicks to hold things up. It's an abuse of the fillibuster. If we need 60 votes to get anything down, then nothing will get done. That's not what the Fore Fathers intended.
ReplyDeleteHow long before this is no longer being rammed through in your opinion? The debate has gone on for a long time. It's time to vote and move on. If the American people have spoken so loudly, than other members of Congress wouldn't vote for it. The President seems confident that they have the 51 votes needed to pass this. That's the natural process, not 60 yes votes.
To pass legislation through the Senate a Super Majority is required and that is 60 votes. The purpose of this is to slow down the process to ensure the legislation being passed is in the best interest of Americans. The Constitution requires the Senate to have 60 votes to end debate and pass legislation. That is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended. Please go back a read the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAt the bottom of this page you will see where the Super Majority is pointed out. http://www.usconstitution.net/congress.html
Democrats had their 60 super majority last year. Why did they not get health care past? Not one Republican needed to cast a vote in favor of health care reform nor did have a say in when debate was to end. All of that feel at the feet of Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi. The reform that is before Congress will not reform the system.
Obviously Americans have spoken otherwise Blue Dog Democrats would be on board with the bill but that is not true.
I suggest the same to you. Please show specifically the language of the constitution where 60 votes is required to PASS legislation. It's needed to end a fillibuster, not the same. We would never pass any legislation if 60 votes were required. It's a simple majority. What the Republicans are doing by fillibustering or threatening to do is a gimmick. They are allowing a procedural rule to bog down the process.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to read this for some perspective: "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html"
ReplyDeleteAnon..yes, correct to pass the actual piece of legislation is a simple majority but part of the process to get there requires a Super Majority to which our Founding Fathers set forth to ensure that legislation being voted on for passage was for the good for all Americans and not to push an agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe reform being talked about does not reform the system it only enslaves Americans to another entitlement program. Welcome to 21st Slavery.
Interesting Op-Ed. If we are to rule the filibuster unconstitutional then we must rule any mandate of health care coverage the same.
ReplyDeleteHas Medicare been unsuccessful? Would you really consider it slavery? I think in the 40+ years of Medicare's existence, it has been quite a successful program.
ReplyDeleteHistory lesson: Nowhere in the constitution's articles does the word "filibuster" get mentioned. However, the constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings.
That is actually from a Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Ballin (1892). So, the filibuster is not a constitutional mandate to the Senate, it is just one in which the Senate rules allow for and hasn't been changed by the majority. In theory, the Senate has always been thought of as a voice for minority opposition because of its limited members and its ability for those members to be heard. The only time in history that the filibuster was used gregariously was the Civil Rights debates of 1964 but eventually they were unsuccessful. The House of Representatives used the filibuster until 1842 when the rules were changed and various parliments around the world allow for the unlimited time for speaking about particular legislation.
Viper, the founding fathers gave no mention of the filibuster or the super-majority. I tend to believe that you invoke them way too much in your blogs. However, as a parlimentary proceedure to do away with the filibuster would set a bad precident. I think that way typically because of the what-goes-around-comes-around mentality. Which, in this case, the Democrats are feeling from their complaints several years ago.
Medicare has been and will continue to remain costly. If Medicare was a success why is additional coverage required or supplements? Medicare is going to further put our country in debt as the baby boomers age.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the word filibuster does not appear in the Constitution yet it does call for a 2/3rds vote to stop debate before a vote can take place. It wasn't changed, as the Op-Ed listed prior, until 1970's to 60 votes. At the end of the day, the health care reform passed by the House and the Senate does not reform the system.
The system provides excellent care otherwise people from around the world wouldn't come here for health care. It should not suprise Americans that the Democrats are looking to change the game just take a look at what they did to fill former Sen. Kennedy's seat prior to the run off.
So...when you retire, when your needs for medical care have gone up, unless you can pay you can not use the healthcare system? No, Medicare as a healthcare delivery system has been quite successful for elderly people. The cost of it has not been an issue until recently when there have been more and more uninsured and underinsured driving up the cost of healthcare. Insurance companies can raise their premiums. Medicare requires an act of congress. Medicare in your payroll tax hasn't gone up for decades. That would surmount to raising of taxes...there are Medicare supplements because Medicare dosen't cover everything. Neither does private insurance. In fact, private insurance probably covers less for the most plans. Medicare advantage is a supplement insurance--paid for by subsidies by the government.
ReplyDeleteBut, you are right. We have the best healthcare in the world. The best doctors, hospitals, and a huge growth of research. So why do people around the world come here? Money. So if there is a middle-class person who needs a hip replacement in Canada, do you think they could afford the care here in the US? No. The Mayo Clinic caters to some very wealthy people, but for the rest of us, we get treated and the bill goes to the taxpayers.
First off Chris, try pursuing truth rather than regurgitating Republican talking points for a while. Your sources are obviously Right wing, demagogic, tea party newsletters. That's no better than repeatedly watching Al Gores documentary and claiming you know facts about global warming.....it just smacks of willful ignorance.
ReplyDeleteSo let's review some of those inconvenient facts. Fact is, the Republicans used this "parliamentary gimmick" 61 times by my count during the Bush 8 years. (I actually went back and counted their voting record too, which sucked.)
How was it ok then and it's not ok now? Why are Republicans crying about it now when they were ok for it then? Could it be more about power than about "right and wrong"?
Fact, they used it for things like an unfunded Medicare Prescription plan and 2 unfunded Bush Tax cuts to name a few of the things. (those 3 bills cost the taxpayers ~2 trillion in debt with no offsetting cost reductions or tax increases by the way)
So what's the issue here? Truth is, I don't like this healthcare bill. I think it's too big and costs too much.
But for you to come out here and spew this Republican BS presuming that the your shit isn't stinking up the countryside while simultaneously complaining that the democrats shit stinks is flagrant hypocrisy.
Again, this mentality of "it's ok for me, but if you do it then it's unconsitutional" is utter bullshit.
If it's wrong, then it's wrong, no matter which side used it. But I never heard a peep from ya'll back when Bush and the Republicans were don't this same shit while we, the true fiscal conservatives, were screaming foul.
You all follow fiscal conservative principals like Minnesotans follow the Vikings - you're fair weather fans because it's politically convenient to be so.
So what changed between then and now Chris? What was different then that made those unfunded bills passed with parliamentary gimmick votes ok but now it's suddenly not ok? What makes you so irrate now but you weren't up in arms then?
Like I said, this probably has more to do with power, or lack thereof than anything remotely fiscal in nature. But Glenn Beck, et al. sure parade it around under a false mask of fiscal conservatism, don't they?
I hate to say it Chris, but I'd welcome you to the party of fiscal responsibility and invite you in for a beer if you didn't have so much shit on your shoes from wallowing in this Republican BS much.
But it's never too late to change your shoes. Feel free to stop towing the party line and educate yourself on Libertarianism. Just be prepared to not waffle back and forth like a willow in the wind. We're none too fond of fake fiscal conservatives if you can't tell.
I disagree on your take on the founding fathers purpose. Here's the problem, if 3/5ths was so key to end debate and ensure the legislation was good for the people, why not just require 3/5ths for passage? Why have a lesser standard to actually pass it? Why have the VP as the tiebreaker? Why increase the complexity? Others later may have found some value but not the founders other wise their intent could have been clearly laid out. Stop invoking the founding fathers when it doesn't apply
ReplyDeleteKevin...I am not and never have been in unfunded mandates. I have for a long while contended that Medicare and Medicaid should be phased out in favor of HSA and High Deductible Insurance.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with reconcilitation. I quote various sites and in this entry I quote NY Times and Pew Research group. For a while now I wished I had started my blog during the Bush years so as to prove to the naysayers to the belief that I regurgitate Republican talking points.
You should know that I favor many aspects that fiscally conservative and do not represent Republican talking points. I am not taking the stance that it's okay for me but not for you mentality. I have not waffled on my stances either.
Anon...that is great question. I do wonder why 60 votes is now required to shut down debate but not to pass the legislation. My guess is that if enough Senators agreed to end debate then the legislation must be good enough to vote on.
ReplyDelete"Interesting Op-Ed. If we are to rule the filibuster unconstitutional then we must rule any mandate of health care coverage the same." Why? Why? Why? How do you come to that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteDid you really read it? This is wrong: " part of the process to get there requires a Super Majority to which our Founding Fathers set forth to "
Maybe because it was envisioned to be abused and grind legislation to halt? Why would a Senator who won't vote for a piece of legislation vote to end the debate that would pass the legislation? They wouldn't, it doesn't make sense. My guess is the rule is being abused, by both sides, but abused none the less.
ReplyDeleteChris, I know you cite non-republican sites and I know you seem to want to be a fiscal conservative. But your talking points seem to parrot Fox News rather nicely and in post after post you rail agianst democrat behavior when this same behavior has been shown by republicans for years.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't democrats nor republicans - it's both parties. They're all guilty. And citing the constitution as proof that reconciliation is wrong is baseless since reconciliation is part of the Senate rule structure. Furthermore, the founding fathers never intended the senate to operate the way it does today. Jefferson is quoted in numerous writings of the time as stating that periodic change to how it operates SHOULD. He called them "little revolutions". But the Senate still operates under archaic 200+ year old rules that allow 12% of the population (40 senators from the smallest states regardless of affiliation) to stop ALL legislation from passing. How is that a productive democracy? The answer is that it's not.
That is not what the founding fathers intended.
I agree, Kevin, that both parties are guilty of partisanship and doing things for the best interest in their parties. Why I am riding the Democrats harder right now is because they are in power. Obama ran on change and hope yet we have not seen anything like that.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of establishing the new Government after the Articles of Confederation was not to create an overbearing central government but it was to give more power than was given under the AOC.
There is a passage in the Constitution that says that Senate to adopt rules to run the Senate.
Once the Republican gain back Congress and/or the White House you will see me call them out as they attempt to grow government, spend out of control and/or pass unfunded legislation.
Again, why? "Interesting Op-Ed. If we are to rule the filibuster unconstitutional then we must rule any mandate of health care coverage the same." That's a pretty bold statement.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution does allow the Senate to establish rules for its workings and the Filibuster has become part of that. Now, there is a bit of wiggle room for the Senate to manuever the rules to fit the day and time. Another example is the creation of reconcilation.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution also restricts the Government from mandating its citizens to purchase any good or service. Do I personally like the Filibuster; no. All the filibuster really does is to push partisan politics.
We are closing in on a time where Americans need to stand up and reel back in the Government. Spending is out of control, partisanship is out of control, entitlements are out of control, Fed is out of control and special interest still rule the roast in Washington D.C.
Unfortunately with our two party system we will continue to spin our wheels.
Your opinion is that the Constitution restricts the mandate. I'm guessing the White House has an argument as to why it doesn't. My hunch is that a president who graduated from one of the top law schools in the country and taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country, probably has thought this one through a tad.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct on the White House having an stance on why the Commerce Clause can be used to mandate every American purchase health care coverage. At the same time an equally strong argument can be made that the Commerce Clause was not written for a Democratic form of government to mandate their citizens purchase anything.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes a good case on how complex the issue is and how the Supreme Court may stuggle with popular opinion, polcy, and the Constitution. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20091212_6842.php
Just because Obama went to an Ivy league school and attended law school does not equate to a high degree of intelligence. I believe that Bush went to an Ivy league school as well. And remember Obama's adminssion to the top law school was in part of Affirmative Action. I do not mean to marginalize the achievements just stating a fact.
And his being appointed to editor in chief of the law review? A job teaching Con Law? Please, you do marginalize and sound ridiculous. I would find it difficult to imagine even his opponents would question his intellect. Affirmative action doesn't keep you in law school. Regardless, my larger point was don't state opinions as facts. You continue to do so. What a joke
ReplyDeleteAs I said I do not take away his achievements in completely law school and obtaining a law degree. I acknowledge it is no easy task.
ReplyDeleteAs for the larger point. The fact still remains that the Constitution does not call for Congress or our Government to mandate that we as Americans must buy a certain product. That is not opinion. Now the interpretation of the Commerce Clause is being stretched in every direction in an attempt to fit both sides of the argument while ignoring the central tenet that it does not state a mandate can put upon Americans by Congress or the Government.
I am okay with your pot shots and the fact that you will only comment as anonymous. I knew that going in when I opened up comments to anonymous people. I know it is far easier to take shots then offer up solutions too. I have attempted several times on my blog to offer solutions to decisions being made by our elected officals when I think they are headed in the wrong direction. Have you?
Your own article says that there could be support for it. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't. Until the SC rules, it is just a matter of opinion. Yours, mine, and anyone elses.
ReplyDeleteanon..I know. I read the article and I posted because it does show how divided people are over the Commerce Clause and other Articles of the Constitution. It still does not detract from the central tenet of the argument that the Constitution does not state that Congress or the Government is able to mandate it. With it's absence it is logical to presume that they cannot.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, by setting a mandate we take one more goose step away from a Democracy and toward socialism.
Diferent Anon.
ReplyDeleteFaulty reasoning and flawed logic once again.
"The Constitution does not state that Congress or the Government is able to mandate it." "It" presumably refers to health care. "With it's absence it is logical to presume that they cannot."
Umm, sorry, no. Why don't you read a few commerce clause decisions and then get back to us all. You'll find that it's not as simple as saying "no they can't do it" or "no it's not in the Constitution" or "I don't see the word health care in the Constitution so they can't do it" or "it is logical to presume that they cannot."
Here are some reading recommendations:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Swift & Co. v. US, 196 US 375 (1905)
Schechter Poultry v. US, 295 US 495 (1935)
Carter v. Carter Coal Corp, 298 US 238 (1936)
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 US 1 (1937)
Heart of Atl. Motel v. US, 379 US 241 (1964)
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 274 (1964)
Lopez v. US, 514 US 549 (1995)
Morrison v. US, 529 US 598 (2000)
Cornell offers a great website to find opinions: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
Dickish comments above aside, I really think you could learn something by reading a few of these cases. At a minimum you might have an appreciation for the complexity of a question regarding the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Then again, you'd have to pull yourself away from Fox News, Big Government, The National Review, Michelle Malkin and Red State for more than 2 minutes.
See this is how little you know me. As I do not follow just one medium or a particular slanted medium to get my information from. I do the best I can to read multiple sites and view points. At the same time I acknowledge I do not have all the answers I do look for readers like yourself to offer up additional reading and view points.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledged that the commerce clause is being stretched by all sides to fit the argument. The simple fact that no one can dispute is the constitution does not call for the federal government to dictate to its citizens to purchase a particular good or services. To so so goes against the very fabric of the hemp used to write the original document. That fiber is freedom, the freedom to choose. Mandating something upon the citizens strips away that freedom. Is that something that is allowed under a democratic society? No. That is something allowed under socialism though.
So you read multiple sources. Great. That doesn't change the fact that you have a very narrow view of every topic. Just like Kevin said above, your talking points are the same over and over and over. There's virtually no variance from the caveman like "government bad freedom good" refrain.
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. Read at least two of those opinions and you might be surprised by what is in them. You'll find that the words "regulate commerce...among the several States" is a more powerful statement than it appears at first blush. Until you read at least two of the full opinions noted above, don't comment. Please.
Now you miss something in my caveman drumbeat. It goes like this: Big Government Bad Freedom Good.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't everyone have a narrow view on every topic? Ones point of view is narrow becuase it is just that a point of view. That being said, one can have a narrow point of view and have depth to that point of view at the same time. If my narrow point of view was shallow then you have an argument.
An aside to this. As I read these court cases that you provided, and I honestly thank you for them, please take a moment to remove the veil of anoniminty so future comments can be more identifiable.
Chris, you lost this argument the moment you invoked the "socialist = nazi" argument with your comment " one more goose step away from a Democracy and toward socialism".
ReplyDeleteAnyone who feels the need to invoke nazi's in their argument instantly loses in my opinion.
So you know though. The nazi's were fascists, not socialists and the difference is extreme. Equating socialism with goose stepping nazi's is as appropriate as equating the Nazi's with a Jewish Boy's choir. It's just absurd.
Kevin..I know there is a difference between Socialism and Facism. I also know that most people immediately equate the goosestep to Nazi Germany but they are not the only military group to use the goosestep.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, and Venzuela all use the goosestep in their military marches. My comment "by setting a mandate we take one more goose step away from a Democracy and toward socialism" does not say refer to Facism rather it is an accurate use of the term when referring to Socialism. You inferred that I was equating Socialism to Facism which is not the case.