Abuse Of Power

[BeAChooser]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html

MARCH 3, 2010

... snip ...

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool.

... snip ...

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. ... snip ... Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

... snip ...

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all—and can't become law without those amendments.

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

How low the current batch of democrats have sunk in order, as this article points out,

permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation.

I say if these people force this through Congress against the American people clear wishes, we the American people need to make the democrat party a minority party until the day they undo all the damage they've done and will do with this ... naked abuse of power.

 

[Spindrift]

Guess who said this?

I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party’s agenda. I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid.

John McCain

 

[willhaven]

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool.

And the CBO estimates that health reform in conjunction with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will leave the deficit reduced by 80-some billion by 2019.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/contributors/MCannon.php

RESPONDED ON OCTOBER 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Michael F. Cannon
Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute

Two points:
1. Baucus 2.0 would cost $2 trillion or more, not $829 billion.
2. Baucus 2.0 would increase the deficit, not reduce it.

1. The actual cost. The $829 figure everyone heralds as the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimate ignores another $108 billion in government spending under Baucus 2.0.

The $829 billion figure is actually only the CBO’s estimate of new federal spending on health insurance. Former CBO director Donald Marron finds $75 billion of additional new federal spending. The bill would also impose unfunded mandates on state governments, which the CBO projects would increase state-government spending by $33 billion. Voila: $937 billion of new government spending.

But even that ignores the private-sector mandates.

Baucus 2.0 would require most Americans to purchase health insurance. That mandate would force people to spend their money in ways they otherwise would not. Those mandated payments (to private insurers) are part of the cost of the bill.

Massachusetts enacted a similar health care overhaul in 2006. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates that the private-sector mandates account for 60 percent of total costs.

If the ratio of private-sector mandates to new government spending is similar, then the total cost of Baucus 2.0 is actually north of $2 trillion ($937 billion times 2.5).

2. A budget-buster. The CBO estimated that Baucus 2.0 would reduce the deficit by $81 billion. Yet the bill only achieves that feat by assuming about $234 billion in spending cuts that everyone knows ain’t gonna happen.

Baucus 2.0 assumes that in 2012 Congress will permit the very Medicare cuts that Congress has blocked over and over again since 2003. So yes, Baucus 2.0 would reduce the deficit – conditional on something as likely as, say, the sun rising in the West.

But rather than, say, scrutinize the actions of an elected official, the media have crowned Baucus the king of Deficit-Reduction Land.

All of which leads me to a third point:

1. The media have completely botched this story.

 

[GreyArea]

Quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial:
"Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall..."

How much of that disapproval is from people who think the bill goes too far and how much of that disapproval is from people who think the bill does not go far enough?

 

[rwguinn]

How much of that disapproval is from people who think the bill goes too far and how much of that disapproval is from people who think the bill does not go far enough?

Does that actually matter?
Disapproval is disapproval...

 

[drkitten]

And the CBO estimates that health reform in conjunction with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will leave the deficit reduced by 80-some billion by 2019.

How dare you interrupt BeAChooser's ill-informed rants with actual information?

Why, people might realize that he's nothing but an irrational partisan hack!

 

[Upchurch]

Health care reform is social legislation?

 

[GreyArea]

Does that actually matter?
Disapproval is disapproval...

It's one thing to disapprove of something because you think it's an entirely bad idea. It's very different to say that disapprove because it's a compromised half-step in the mostly right direction that will only delay the real needed reform. People in the former group seem to want to inflate their numbers by counting the latter group as their allies, when they're not.

I still hear from people unhappy about the public option being beaten down, and that single-payer was essentially ignored. So, of course they don't like this bill, but for different reasons than the Republicans.

If it's passed, the social democrats will just try to build on it, while the conservatives will try to destroy it.

 

[Dancing David]

It must be TRUE!

Google Fight abuse of power Health Care Reform vs Alberto Gonzales

 

[BeAChooser]

It must be TRUE!

Google Fight abuse of power Health Care Reform vs Alberto Gonzales

LOL!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does that actually matter?
Disapproval is disapproval...

Not really.

I disapprove of the bill, but given the politics of our nation, I think it should be passed.

That's the sort of position many of these polls don't separate out.

 

[leftysergeant]

Before you go banging on about polls reflecting public disapproval of the bill, find out how many disapprove because there is no public option. Otherwise, you are just babbling. I, as a liberal, am dissatisfied that the public option is gone, at least for now. Without that, the corporations cannot be made to act like human beings, and it all becomes just another profit center for people the country could do without.

 

[willhaven]

Before you go banging on about polls reflecting public disapproval of the bill, find out how many disapprove because there is no public option. Otherwise, you are just babbling. I, as a liberal, am dissatisfied that the public option is gone, at least for now. Without that, the corporations cannot be made to act like human beings, and it all becomes just another profit center for people the country could do without.

Good point. Given polls of the public option itself, a majority support it. It wouldn't make sense for a majority to support the public option and have a majority be against health reform in general.

It must be phrased in the context of the bills as they currently stand.

 

[BeAChooser]

I disapprove of the bill, but given the politics of our nation, I think it should be passed.

That's the sort of position many of these polls don't separate out.

You really think these polls don't separate that out?

Here's the question that http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform asked 1000 likely voters: "Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?" 52% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the plan. 44% somewhat favor or strongly favor the plan.

Here's another poll (from February 12-15): http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=f3gWxEuHvE8 . In it, 1023 Americans were asked "What do you think Congress should do on health care -- pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?" Only 25% said pass the bill. The rest either said start on a new bill or leaves things alone.

Here's another poll (from January 15th): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/fox-news-poll-support-health-care-increases-oppose/ In it, 900 registered voters were asked "Based on what you know about the health considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?" Only 39% were in favor. 51% were opposed.

Here's another poll (from February 11): http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8051.cfm . In it they asked this: "As you may know, health care reform legislation was passed separately by the U.S. House and the Senate in recent months, but the two houses have not been able to agree on one plan to send to the president and so the legislation is currently stalled out in Congress. Does the fact that health reform has run into some delays make you feel …?" And while about 54% said they were frustrated or disappointed, 69% said they were "pleased" (that nothing was passed). They also asked "What do you think Congress should do now on health care reform?" 32% said pass the legislation as is. 20% said pull out key provisions before passing it. 22% said deal with the issue later. And 19% said stop working on health care.

Here's a February 23 poll of 1009 Americans: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126191/Americans-Tilt-Against-Democrats-Plans-Summit-Fails.aspx . It indicates that 49% oppose and only 43% favor "Congress passing a healthcare bill similar to the ones proposed by President Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate". Furthermore, only 39% favor and 52% oppose Democrats in the Senate using a parliamentary procedure to avoid a Republican filibuster and pass healthcare bill by simple majority vote.

In all cases those polled were against passing the bill as is. And when specifically asked if democrats should do what they are now trying to do, they overwhelmingly said no. I guess they agree with Senator Byrd that what democrats are now trying to do is an Abuse Of Power.

So I really don't think your assertion is valid, Joe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You really think these polls don't separate that out?

No, they don't.

They don't separate people who disapprove of the Senate plan, for example, because they want a public option from those who disapprove of it on broader grounds.

For that matter, since polls show a majority of Americans support a single payer system, polls that show oppose/favor or approve/disapprove don't separate those who think the bill doesn't do enough from those who think it does too much.

And a very recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 63% of voters think Congress to "keep trying" to pass healthcare reform with only 34% who want Congress to "give up". ETA: Linky.

So I really don't think your assertion is valid, Joe.

You really don't understand what conclusions you can and can't legitimately draw from a poll, do you? Same problem you show over on this thread.

 

[Magyar]

Before you go banging on about polls reflecting public disapproval of the bill, find out how many disapprove because there is no public option. Otherwise, you are just babbling. I, as a liberal, am dissatisfied that the public option is gone, at least for now. Without that, the corporations cannot be made to act like human beings, and it all becomes just another profit center for people the country could do without.

This is my feeling on it as well. I think of this bill akin to having a war on crime run by for profit companies that get paid based on the number of people they arrest and then being SHOCKED that a whole bunch of innocent people were taken into custody by said companies.



Right now, as is this bill does nothing but force a bunch of people into forking over untold amounts of money to the insurance companies with NO guarantee that services will be there or that cost won;t go through the roof.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's the question that http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform asked 1000 likely voters: "Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?" 52% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the plan. 44% somewhat favor or strongly favor the plan.

This one is a simple favor/oppose poll that does nothing to sort out why people are opposed. (So it would lump those who think the proposal doesn't do enough, or those who approve except for the abortion language or some such.)

Here's another poll (from February 12-15): http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=f3gWxEuHvE8 . In it, 1023 Americans were asked "What do you think Congress should do on health care -- pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?" Only 25% said pass the bill. The rest either said start on a new bill or leaves things alone.

I think you're misreading this one. Here's a direct quote from the article reporting on the poll (my bolding): "A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday also indicates that only a quarter of the public want Congress to stop all work on health care, with nearly three quarters saying lawmakers should pass some kind of reform."

At any rate, I don't think this poll separates out those who are opposed to the bills because they want something more sweeping from those who oppose it because they think it's too sweeping.

Here's another poll (from January 15th): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/fox-news-poll-support-health-care-increases-oppose/ In it, 900 registered voters were asked "Based on what you know about the health considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?" Only 39% were in favor. 51% were opposed.

Same thing. This poll, nearly 2 months old, only reports "favor" or "opposed".

Also, the first sentence of this poll noted that support for the bill is increasing, "A Fox News poll released Friday finds 39 percent of Americans favor the health care bill, the highest level of support to date in the poll, and up from 34 percent in December. "

Here's another poll (from February 11): http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8051.cfm . In it they asked this: "As you may know, health care reform legislation was passed separately by the U.S. House and the Senate in recent months, but the two houses have not been able to agree on one plan to send to the president and so the legislation is currently stalled out in Congress. Does the fact that health reform has run into some delays make you feel …?" And while about 54% said they were frustrated or disappointed, 69% said they were "pleased" (that nothing was passed). They also asked "What do you think Congress should do now on health care reform?" 32% said pass the legislation as is. 20% said pull out key provisions before passing it. 22% said deal with the issue later. And 19% said stop working on health care.

And this one argues that more people want something passed.

Here's a February 23 poll of 1009 Americans: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126191/Americans-Tilt-Against-Democrats-Plans-Summit-Fails.aspx . It indicates that 49% oppose and only 43% favor "Congress passing a healthcare bill similar to the ones proposed by President Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate".

You left out that this poll was taken just before the "summit" and the question was about their support for healthcare legislation "if agreement is not reached at bipartisan summit". Again, you're trying to predict what their answers would be if the question were a different question, and you can't do that legitimately.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think the greatest abuse of power is the GOP's blocking any measures now so that they can go home and campaign on the basis of having tried to get a rational health care bill through congress, and having to block a bad one. They do not want to go home and campaign on a promise to overturn what does get passed, like an end to recission or denial based on pre-existing conditions.

For the Democrats, any bill is the camel's nose under the tent. It can be revisited and tweaked.

The GOP needs there to be no bill passed, so that they do not have to go home and find something negative to say about a law the keeps the insurance companies from taking their money and running away.

 

[Meadmaker]

There's a real problem with trying to persuade people that this is an abuse of power.

In grade school, we all learned that in Congress, legislators propose bills to make new laws, and Senators and Congressmen read the laws and decide if they think those are good laws, and if they think it would be a good law, they vote for it, and if a majority votes yes, it becomes law.

In high school and adulthood, we learn that it's not quite so straightforward. There are committees and rules that can prevent people from ever voting on a bill. There is partisan politics that causes people to vote for a bill even if they don't want it, or against it just because they think they can score points by making the other team look bad. People trade votes and tiptoe around ethics rules that prevent them from outright selling votes. It's not much like the textbooks from grade school. Oh, sure, if a majority votes yes, it still goes to the President's desk, just like it said in the books, but people might never even get to vote on a bill, even if the majority thinks it's a good bill.

So, what is happening now is that one group of people (Republicans) is using a rule (the fillibuster) to prevent a vote on a bill. The Democratic leadership wants to vote on the bill, so they are going to use another rule (reconcilliation) to get around the block on the bill imposed by the first rule. You're trying to persuade people that one of those two uses of the rules to twist the legislative process is an abuse of power. It's a tough sell.