With the stroke of a pen late Tuesday morning came the latest challenge to the land of the free and home of the brave. There is nothing free about imposing on the American populace a mandate to purchase a particular product. Likewise, there is nothing brave about failing to stand up to an administration more invested in its own legacy than in serving the people of the United States. For these reasons and others, the passage of Obamacare into law is nothing short of unfortunate.
To be clear, there are positive aspects of the legislation, but they are heavily outweighed by the negative. Thus, Paul Ryan is right to argue that any future repeal by Congress of this travesty should be coupled with the passage of a much more sound reform alternative. Already, some are seeking judicial recourse for the injustice that is the Obama health reform law. However, if history has been any indication, the judiciary has been unable to stop presidential excess, just ask members of the Cherokee nation, or those justices on the U.S. Supreme Court much later during the “switch in time” in 1937.
The remarks of the respective party leaders on the House floor Sunday evening provided all that is needed to know about where the two parties stand on the latest imposition on the American individual and his essential liberty.
For Nancy Pelosi, passing this legislation is about fulfilling the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a president who gave the nation the social security obligations it cannot meet is the very same who Pelosi all-too-appropriately praises with respect to the intrusive and even more costly new health care entitlement. The Speaker turns on its head the promise of the legally irrelevant Declaration of Independence. Essentially, her understanding of history is no less warped than that of Pat Buchanan. Reasonable observers, especially those concerned about civil liberties, should be wondering why it makes sense to overhaul one sixth of the economy to insure ten percent of the American public.
John Boehner, who is never this eloquent, offers a much more measured historical analysis for this legislation. The partisan press has harped on his angry tone rather than the substance of his charges. This instance is one where the anger was justified, and should have been helpful to the cause of reason in the national political discourse. Boehner was effective here in reiterating that Republican opposition is not to reform as a concept, but rather to this particular proposal. Unfortunately, reality does not satisfy the anger narrative pushed by so many who should really know better. His point about having each member cast votes via a roll call demonstrates how cowardly the majority caucus was in passing the landmark reform bill. Ultimately, the intensity of Boehner’s remarks reflects the long legacy of contentious Congressional battles; one can no more condemn his intensity Sunday evening than one can Congressional abolitionists before the civil war for the passion of their views.
By the end of voting on Sunday, there were 219 votes in favor of Obamacare. Among them was Bart Stupak and some of his group who still have the audacity to claim that they are pro-life. Like it or not, the language of the passed Senate bill will allow for taxpayer funding of cosmetic abortion (pdf), and requires insurance plans to offer abortion coverage. Supposedly, Stupid Stupak changed his vote after assurances from the White House of an executive order to impose abortion funding restrictions satisfactory to “pro-life” Democrats. As the White House certainly knows, however executive orders lack the force of law.
Beyond the integrity of pro-life Democrats, another significant casuality of the reform vote Sunday was the Hyde amendment. Dating from the 1980’s, and and named for a Republican former member of Congress, the Hyde amendment was a legislative provision governing the public funding of abortion. It was a reasonable compromise by both sides, allowing public subsidy in this area of policy in only the most dire of circumstances. Due to the sheer policy expanse of the new law, the longstanding, sound compromise is no more, and the abortion policy battle is renewed once again. Hopefully, this vote will have electoral consequences for those of the 219 who are not retiring this year.
The consequences for the American public of this new law are only now being tackled by the popular press. Conservatives have lately taken to heart the mantra that members of Congress read the bills on ehich they vote. These members, when they offer a response to the charge, suggests that they have staffers to review the contents of proposed legislation when they cannot. While true, the press can only serve a responsible role in society if it reports on what the members have not read, or their hard workong employees have overlooked. Potential consequences of landmark legislation ought to be a matter of easily descernable public record well before the prospect of final passage. Such would distinguish journalists from mere reporters. Of course, either should have done more to dispell the hollow notion that the failure of the legislation passed Sunday and signed into law Tuesday actually meant the end of health care reform.
Had the reform plan failed Sunday, the administration would have been forced to do what it should have all along; focus on smaller, more broadly popular policy ideas. Unfortunately, in Washington, legacy still matters more than principles. Some things never change.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
- Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010
- In Defense of Michael Steele - July 9th, 2010
- McDonald and Kagan - July 2nd, 2010
- The Petraeus Dilemma. - June 23rd, 2010
