All in Favor
March 15th, 2010 | Editorial Cartoons | 12 Comments
Tweet
I heard a funny thing this morning. Republicans said that if the Democrats go ahead and pass health care reform by the process known as “reconciliation,” or, to us laymen, a majority vote, it would make bipartisan cooperation more difficult in the future. This from the party that has made partisan obstructionism its only strategy since Obama was elected. What’s especially galling is their claim that major legislation shouldn’t be passed without bipartisan support when they have zero interest in contributing to the process. The GOP alternative to health care reform is the status quo, with minor tweaks that do nothing to solve the major problems. The same goes for financial reform. They’re all for it so long as it doesn’t protect the consumer or include any provisions that prevent the banks from ripping us off again. The genius of the Republican spin machine is that they package their contempt for the public with a populist message. They’ve somehow persuaded the people their policies have hurt the most (remember bank deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, pork barrel farm and highway bills, the Medicare doughnut hole, massive deficits on their watch–all the things that got us in this mess in the first place?) that they’re on the side of the little guy.
Despite warnings from the right that if Democrats pass health care reform, they’ll be destroyed in November, I’m of the opinion that they’ll be rewarded by the voters for actually doing something, and that goes double for financial reform. Much of the anger at the Democratic party and Obama has to do with their failure to deliver, not with over-reaching, as the right wing choir has preached from day one. If they finally give up the hopeless pursuit of cooperation from the GOP and use their majority to deliver for the American people, much will be forgiven.
Topics: bipartisanship, Congress, Democrats, financial reform, GOP, health care reform, majority vote, opinion, reconciliation, Senate
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Even today’s Denver Post notes Chris Dodd is about to come out with something of a much needed reform from his committee without the heading Republican, whose party is calling for stopping, delaying, starting over, again. Is that all they can do? Obviously, to anyone with synaptic functioning neurons, yes. And this after Dodd ignored this 13-10 majority in his chaired committee, to give parity to the leading gop-per.
I am reminded of the adolescent high school and college boy who is asked by his date, ‘do you understand the concept of NO?’ Clearly, the Democratic Party, from the administration to Congress and beyond, do not. When each party has the lead, over history, they rule. So, …, rule! Discuss and invite the others, but if they do not want to play with you, then send them home, or go home yourselves.
Reconciliation, majority vote, whatever – it is just another exhibit of hypocrisy in Washington. Democrats cried foul and abuse of power when the Republicans wanted to use it, now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans are doing the same.
Probably wishful thinking that the Dems will be rewarded for passing healthcare. Polls show a clear majority wish for reform, but a majority does not want the reform being proposed. People are still more concerned with the economy and unemployment. Making Bush’s deficits look like pocket change isn’t helping matters either. People did not vote last November for what they have seen the last 14 months. Blaming ineffectiveness on the Repubs while enjoying democratic control is silly. My wishful thinking is that pretty much every incumbent will be voted out this year (both parties.)
I just think it is a fantasy to believe that simply replacing all incumbants will somehow magically fix the problems in D.C. The new folks had to do the same thing the old folks had to do to get elected:raise money. As soon as they get elected, they immediately start raising money for their re-election. People who give money expect something in return. Besides, if I vote my Rep out, I KNOW that who is selected in her place will be MUCH worse (on my issues).
I am really tired of hearing the rhetoric about the majority not wanting what is in the reform being proposed. I suppose if the majority wanted us to lynch all green-haired people at sundown, then that is what we should do? The problem with the polls, though, is that when each of the major initiatives that are in it is asked separately, the majority is for them. All except paying for any of it. We Americans do have a problem paying for things. There is a good chunk of people that don’t know what is in the package and some that do are unhappy because of what is NOT in it, like a public option. We used to think that if both polars don’t like an agreement that it was probably a fair balance. Not anymore.
You would think that having high unemployment would make folks more interested in having health insurance reform. The only reason I can imagine that it isn’t is that their COBRA premiums are currently being subsidized 65% AND they don’t yet have to go out and try to get accepted for an individual policy. If they did, I’m sure a lot of minds would be changed.
I don’t disagree that it is a fantasy that all problems will somehow be fixed by voting out incumbents. It is more the desire to somehow send a message that corruption, incompetence, self-interest, etc. will just not be tolerated.
As to the majority issue, I wasn’t trying to say that because the majority leans one way, that our legislators must do as much. It was just refering to Ed’s idea that the dems will find success in the upcoming elections by passing their health insurance reform. It seems that if a lot of folks don’t want something passed, and then it is, they will subsequently react with a thumbs-down in the voting booth. We’ll all find out soon enough, I guess.
I think our problems with paying for things lies in the fact that we are in a monetary free-fall, and are trying to keep our heads above the sea of red ink.
Actually, my reference to paying for things was alluding to the over dependence on credit cards (and when thoose are tapped out, re-financing the debt into ones mortgage and then when housing prices drop being shocked that they are under water).
We’ve also, over the years, with only a few exceptions, have our federal government running huge deficits (and I’m not talking about crises like WWII or depressions/recessions). It didn’t matter which party was in office.
One of these days, it will hit the fan.
P.S. When it comes to health care, I think it should be a right and we should, as a society, pay for it – including myself. How many years of care could we have provided with the $$ spent on Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hi Folks. I think Ed has come up with a rather unique term which isn’t used too often, “obstructionism”. Watching the Republicans at play over the last year, their strategy is quite clear: block every move Obama tries to make and then we’ll announce he’s a “do nothing” President in 2012. Republicans aren’t really stupid, they just appear to be that way. They’ll readily spring into action if they feel their wealth is in jeopardy. Notice I said “THEIR” wealth. An average American question might be, “Excuse me, Sir, but aren’t you supposed to be working on behalf of the American People?” “Well, excuse me son, but I’ve got some pockets to line and other special interest people might buy me dinner – no time for your question.” Ed, keep up the good work. Your cartoons are excellent and your perception of the political scene is even better. Chuck
I love reading these self serving feel good rants. You all have been reading the New York Times to long. Oh well , it ‘s time is probably is as short as the current President term in office, so enjoy. This guy you all elected is not a saint or a cure all , just the same as Bush was not the to blame for every thing that happened on his watch. The president of the US is not responsable for the finicial markets of the world. A lot of things happened that happened because of greed and lack of controls many of which were removed under the Clinton term in office. I could go on about the spineless women chaseing hick that was in office that knew about Bin-laden (sp?) and chose to have another drink and chase around the desk then do anything about him. Why did this man come in with just his dirty underware and come out with millions of dollars? Get real The american people elect people on looks and not substance. Been that way since radio and more so now. We Americans buy into a packaged product that looks the part. and Acts the part. Some times you win, Some times you lose, My mother used to say it time to get the tin bill out , so we can pick s–t with the chickens. This time she might be right.
I see you don’t just love reading them. You also like writing them. Feel better, now?
You Bet, and the New York Times Laid off 6 more Reportors today, makin it a real good one.
Ok look reconciliation is not a majority vote,
this is from the wall street journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html
reconciliation is permitted only for bills that amend existing law, not for amendments to bills that have yet to be enacted. This means that, for the Senate to be able to avoid a filibuster, House Democrats first have to vote for the identical bill that passed the Senate last Christmas Eve. That means voting aye on the special deals, aye on abortion coverage, and aye on high taxes on expensive health-insurance plans. Challengers are salivating at the prospect of running against incumbents who vote for these provisions.
Enter the Slaughter solution. It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.
and to conclude……. no they cannot do it……. its unconstituional
They do not care. They want this at all costs, and in their arrogance will pass anything in any way possible, giving hollow promises to go back and amend it later. They do not care about the consequences, most importantly they do not really care about people. They just want to satisfy their egos and say that they did it – and fortunately for them they have a blindly devoted base that will keep at least some of them in office.
Excellent Ed, I totally agree. The alternative is to do nothing about our Healthcare system and that is unacceptable.