- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Michael Barone: A Month of Gloomy Thursdays for Health Care Plan
Thursday is the day things tend to come to a boil on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress have been in town for three or four days; they’re planning their exits on Friday to meet other commitments; they’ve had a chance to talk and meet with one another and sample the moods of their colleagues.
This month, Thursdays have been very bad days for the Obama administration’s attempt to pass health care bills concocted by House and Senate committee chairmen.
On the first Thursday after Congress got back in session, July 9, 40 members of the Democratic Blue Dogs caucus sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter opposing any health-care bill that would increase the federal deficit, fail to reform delivery systems, and not protect small businesses and rural health providers. Signers included two committee chairmen. The House bill, they wrote, “lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken.”
On the next Thursday, July 16, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf addressed those concerns in testimony on the Hill. He reiterated the CBO’s conclusion that the Democratic bills would increase the federal deficit, by something on the order of $1 trillion over 10 years. And, no, the Democratic bills would not “bend the cost curve” — i.e., would not reform the delivery systems in ways that would cut costs. Pelosi and Obama insisted, in foot-stamping mode, that their bills would really, really cut costs.
That same day, freshman Rep. Jared Polis of Boulder, Colo., sent Pelosi a letter signed by 21 House freshmen and one sophomore opposing the increased taxes on high earners imposed by the two House committee bills. “Especially in a recession,” the letter read, “we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery.”
There are 256 Democrats in the House, with one vacant Democratic seat. Only five Democrats signed both the Blue Dogs’ and Polis’ letters. That means that 57 Democrats signed one letter or the other, pledging to oppose central features of the Democratic health care bills. Few, if any, Republicans are expected to support either bill. You do the math. The Democratic leadership seems well short of the 218 votes needed for a majority on the floor. No wonder House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said it’s time “to go back to the drawing board.”
Obama and congressional Democratic leaders are blaming Republicans for their problem. Obama noted that Republican Sen. Jim DeMint and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol want to “kill” the Democratic bills. But the Blue Dogs’ and Polis’ letters showed that the mortal threat comes from elected Democrats. Twenty-nine of the 57 letter signers defeated or replaced Republicans in 2006 or 2008. Thirty-three of them represent districts carried by John McCain in 2008.
What we’re seeing is the people speaking through their politicians. Obama and many Democrats assumed that the financial crisis would predispose most Americans to favor a larger and much more expensive government than we have ever had before.
A plausible hope for change, perhaps, but polling shows it hasn’t happened. The prospect of huge federal deficits extending out as far as the eye can see is not appealing to most voters. The prospect of having the health care sector of the economy designed by the people who gave us the $787 billion stimulus package is even less appetizing.
But we should not cynically underrate the importance of a strong argument, which may prevail despite the transcendent aura of a new president. Some of the Blue Dogs’ concerns may be parochial (rural health care), but they make a strong case, buttressed by Elmendorf’s expert testimony, that Congress should not rush to transform the health care sector at huge cost and with little cost-cutting effect. And the Polis letter-signers’ concern about the negative macroeconomic effects of higher taxation of high earners can find support in the writings of Democratic, as well as Republican, economists.
What will this Thursday bring? We’ll wait and see what comes from the buzzing on Capitol Hill. In the meantime, as I read the text of the Blue Dogs’ and Polis’ letters, I suddenly heard the voice of the late Jack Kemp proclaiming at the 1984 Republican National Convention that if you subsidize something, you get more of it and that if you tax something, you get less of it.
— Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 07.23.09 @ 05:51 AM
Well I guess Mr. Barone is about medicare age. Since this program is so bad I am sure he will not take advantage of it. If we can pass a healthcare bill that is deficit neutral, 98% of the population becomes insured, we make the system more efficient, the general population becomes more healthy and less bankrupt due to medical bills, then why not? If we all work together and stop the name calling, find agreement on how to pay for it then something very positive can be done. One thing is for sure if we only rely on the insurance companies to lead the way we are in big trouble.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.23.09 @ 03:27 PM
Tell me, why is it the only solution you see is one that involves liars cheats and thieves, where the only difference between them and the legalized extortionists (insurance), is they are fundamentally more inept?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Michael Barone: Unlike Obama, GOP Candidates Talk Seriously About Governing
Republican nominee could have an advantage over an incumbent president in pure campaign mode
Michael Barone: South Carolina Hoping to Pick Next President
All arrows appear to point to Republican front-runner Mitt Romney
Michael Barone: ‘Tactical Voters’ Went to Romney in New Hampshire
He wins support from Republican undecideds, but he still has a lot of convincing to do
Michael Barone: Romney’s Watchwords in Iowa — Divide and Conquer
But it's too soon to say he has a clear flight path to the GOP presidential nomination
Michael Barone: Voters Want Growth, Not Income Redistribution
Economic distress makes Americans less, not more, supportive of big government
Weather: Fair 44.0º
Search Noozhawk »
