Is there a patriot in the house? Is there anyone in Washington who
regards governing as a means to accomplish anything other than win the
sterile game of Democrat versus Republican? Every day, American soldiers
risk their lives for their country, but people in Congress won't even
risk their jobs to pass legislation essential to the nation's economic
future.
I amend the above to exclude a few principled exceptions in both
parties. One is Democrat Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania. As fellow
Democrats in Washington ran for cover following the Republican win in
Massachusetts (despite factors in the race unique to that state),
Rendell said this about them and health care legislation:
"Listen, you got elected because you wanted to do something to change
the quality of people's lives. Here we have a chance to do something
historic, and if it means some of us are going to lose because of that,
so be it. At least you will have lost your office fighting for something
and accomplishing something."
Rendell urged Democrats to get the bill "as strong as they can" and put
it through the Senate reconciliation process, which requires only 51
votes. Make the Republicans filibuster it, he said. "Call their bluff."
Yeah, let 'em filibuster. Let Republicans filibuster a bill that would
close the "doughnut" hole in Medicare drug benefits and add Medicare
coverage for preventive screening services. Let them kill heath care
reform, without which the cost of employer-sponsored coverage for
families would nearly double by 2019, and the number of Americans
without coverage will balloon to 57 million. Let them support a system
that in seven short years will leave $0 in the Medicare hospital
insurance trust fund.
Democrats wouldn't have to say these things if they had been saying them
all along. It was astounding to see President Obama and other Democrats
stand by meekly as Republicans convinced the elderly that you can't cut
projected Medicare spending without hurting their benefits. As noted,
the legislation would actually improve benefits — the money saved would
come from ending a sweatheart deal with insurers. But they didn't have
the courage to defend themselves, even with the truth.
Want to know how Republicans proposed saving money in Medicare? Under
House House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Republicans in the mid-'90s pushed
for a voucher system: Medicare beneficiaries would have been given a set
sum and told to buy their own coverage from private insurers. This was
not great health care policy, because it would have put the elderly,
especially the sickest, at the mercy of the insurance industry. But as a
way to contain Medicare spending, the Republican plan was completely
honest.
Will the Tea Party activists demanding lower taxes and lower deficits be
willing to tackle the spiraling costs of Medicare? Medicare is the
biggest out-of-control spending item in the federal budget. If they do,
they'll deserve widespread respect, whether or not everyone agrees on
the details.
This notion that health care and the economy are separate issues is
politics at its worst. Health care costs are breaking the backs of
employers and taxpayers — and costing jobs by making American business
uncompetitive in a global economy.
The Democratic moderates' fear of using reconciliation because it would
anger the Republicans is mind-boggling. So instead they angered everyone
by obtaining the 60 Senate votes through tawdry deal-making.
The Democrats' best hope of saving their skin this November is to swing
for the fences with serious health care reform. They can pass a clean
bill without having to sell their souls to a handful of senatorial
shakedown artists.
If Republicans want to filibuster it, Democrats should welcome the
spectacle.
