Health-care reform cleared one key hurdle late this week, as Energy & Commerce Committee approved a bill by a 31-28 measure, sending it to the House floor for a full vote that will likely take place after the August recess. Even if the measure should pass, it would have to be reconciled with whatever health-care bill passes the Senate, and then the compromise measure would have to be voted up or down by both the upper and lower chambers.
The closeness of the vote and the bitterness of some of the battles do not bode well for the future of reform legislation, and that makes the stakes even higher for the recess, when officeholders will hear directly from their constituents. Both sides are gearing up for battle, and I would anticipate a lot of townhall meetings getting pretty ugly across the nation.
But while the liberal side will be every bit as active as the conservative side, it’s difficult to see the landscape becoming any more favorable for them upon returning to Washington than it was in recent months. The opposition is now energized and the GOP rank-and-file has a mission and purpose it really hasn’t had for a long time. There is unity among the grass-roots and their elected officials and that has not been the case in the Republican Party since 2004. Democrats still run the show in Washington and their numbers advantage won’t disappear in autumn—but if they could only scrape out a three-vote win in a committee run by one of their most radical left-wing members (Henry Waxman of California), they aren’t dealing with a lot of margin for error.
My own thoughts on the legislation that cleared committee are this—while I agree with a mandate for individuals to own insurance, and therefore would support public subsidies for those in need (both of which are included in this bill), I cannot go along with it unless there are corresponding measures that work towards making health insurance more affordable for individuals. That means tax breaks for those that buy individual coverage. Without this, the mandate and subsidies will only increase in expense.
Furthermore, Waxman beat back a provision that would have protected pro-life consciences. Late Thursday night, a coalition of Blue Dogs and Republicans teamed up to vote down a requirement that insurers cover abortions. Waxman used a procedural gambit to force another vote and twisted the arm of one Blue Dog to change his vote, thereby winning. Waxman’s belief in free choice does not extend to pro-life voters who don’t want to be forced into financing abortions. For that reason alone, he is the wrong person to be in charge on an issue that’s important to everyone, and for that reason alone, his bill should be shown the way to the trash can.
The declining approval ratings of Barack Obama are going to be very much at issue in this critical August period. Rich Lowry, of National Review writes that Obama should have been more humble in his approach. Lowry argues that had he gone for a less expensive stimulus plan and a more piecemeal approach to health care, he’d have peeled off Republican support and given himself bipartisan cover on his plans. Lowry calls for Barack to try and reconnect with independents.
A big problem with this whole analysis is this—Lowry does not want Obama to succeed in passing his agenda. There’s nothing wrong with that. Lowry simply does not agree. But why write in deep concerned tones, about Barack’s overreach? Because if I were a liberal, I’d be all for the way the new president has approached things. This is the Left’s moment in American politics. Not only with Obama in the White House, but Nancy Pelosi running the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate that was sealed by the arrival of wild-eyed Al Franken from Minnesota. If the Left wants to push through its agenda, there’s never going to be a better chance. Lowry’s problem with Obama’s approach is not that it may result in his eventual defeat, but that it may result in his eventual victory. Just come clean and say it.
Lest there be any confusion, let it be clear that while my opposition to Barack’s program isn’t as across-the-board as Lowry’s, it’s still there. But if we had a point in history where my own kind of politician held the White House, the Speaker’s chair and huge majorities in both bodies, I’d sure as hell want them to go all-out to seize the moment and pass controversial legislation. It’s not arrogant to do so. In fact, it’s humble. It’s recognizing that you won’t have this moment forever, and you need to act while the time is ripe. Arrogance would be thinking that your side will forever dominate the political scene and chances to push through sweeping legislation will always exist. Lyndon Johnson, the great master of the Senate, used to say that if he won a vote by too large a margin, it meant he had given up too much. He only conceded on enough to get the bare majority necessary.
The Left won’t govern American politics like this forever—or even much longer. But while one can therefore understand their motivation, one should also be motivated--if they can be stopped in August, they can pushed back for the foreseeable future. And the groundwork for a more sensible approach to reform can then be laid.
Comments