All things being equal (which, as we all know, they never are), President Obama would rather, we are told, that the U.S. Senate pass 85 percent of his proposed health care reform with the backing of 70 senators than pass 100 percent of his plan with just 51 or 52 votes.
In preferring that major health care reform win Senate support of a super-majority, Obama echoes Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, "Great innovation should not be forced on slender majorities." It is an old legislative maxim that the more legislators, from both parties, there are who support a controversial policy change, the more people there are who have a stake in that public policy being successfully accepted by the voters at large.
The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which guaranteed the right, previously denied African-Americans in many states, to use restaurants, theaters, hotels, motels, parks and public places — was passed by the U.S. Senate on June 10 after senators had debated, since March, that "great innovation" for some 57 Senate working days (including six Saturdays). After complete press coverage of the Senate debate and the bitter-end filibuster, organized by 18 senators from states of the Old Confederacy (all Democrats), the nation overwhelmingly concluded that the Civil Rights Act was both wise and overdue.
That law — with its profound change in banning racial desegregation in the country — was a bipartisan achievement when it finally passed the Senate by a 73-27 vote. Actually, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress supported the 1964 Act, including such respected GOP senators as Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Jacob Javits of New York, Thomas Kuchel of California, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky.
Contrast that bipartisan legislative record with the vote in the U.S. House in August 1941 — when Adolf Hitler ruled France and nearly all of Europe and only a severely outgunned England stood against the Nazi domination — to continue, or to abolish, the military draft for one year.
With isolationism popular in much of United States and nonpartisanship scarce, the House voted to extend military the draft by a single vote, 203 to 202. It was a significant decision even by a razor-thin margin, especially so when we recall that the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor and World War II were just a little over three months away.
Crunch time on health care reform is close. Up to now, President Obama's approach has been the opposite of the Clinton method in 1993, when Hillary Clinton's task force drew up in private a finished, complex plan that was then presented to the Democratic Congress. That plan never even got successfully out of subcommittee, let alone to a floor vote.
The Obama administration has given the Congress both time and space to work on a plan. But now, the road gets rough and dangerous for Congress, and the president — as only the president can do — will have to personally seize the leadership and both confront and force the difficult decisions. He may eventually have to convene a select group from in and out of Congress — under his strong guidance and direction — to draw up the plan that can pass both Houses.
No decision will be tougher politically than deciding how (and who's) to pay the 13-numeral-plus cost over the next 10 years. Obama spent enough time in the Senate to understand the wisdom of Bob Dole, who concluded of that place, "We like to make tough speeches, but we don't like to make tough choices."
The ultimate decision the president could confront is not whether he settles for 85 percent of his health care reform with 70 Senate votes or whether he goes for 100 percent with just 51 votes. No, his fateful choice could be whether he settles for some two-thirds of what he wants with 51 votes. Because, let us be blunt: If health care reform fails this year in the Congress, the damage to the entire Obama agenda and mystique will be major.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2009 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;.... The hard choices the Government hopes to avoid can no longer be denied... But money refuses to give up its grip on government; so division is sown even more vigorously...Majority rule is not democracy... Democracy is self government... The rich should have no more influence on government than the poor, and the reason is simple: The poor who are so numerous would not be as poor if they had more control in their lives...Poverty is not a choice, but is the want of choice -leading to general want... Government denies choice, power, control, and authority to the poor... As a cover for this, it gives to the majority the choice of some officials... If there is no reason to bring the minority along, why do so???.If the country can be run without their consent; then why seek it???. The division in congress reflects the division all across the land, which extends into every district, and some times into churches and schools... And even there, majority rules; and the minority often goes along to get along...It is not good for any community, and not good for the larger community...Division is poison to democracies... Among the Iroquois, consensus was clearly sought, and only in the fight between the British and Americans did the Iroquois confederacy divide...It was there strength... The bound rods of the Romans so prominent in some of our national symbols has this meaning of unity against enemies...We think we can let ourselves be divided, and there has been such bounty in this land that neither side has suffered too much by division...Yet, our division has led to one civil war, and it has weakened us in the face of enemies... Our division gave back every gain, save one, of the civil war, and so spilled lakes of blood for nothing...Division is our life, and it denies us every good for which this nation was formed, and it make manifest every evil that has ever weakened and destroyed any country... Jefferson had it good..They were not so ruled by parties. The parties, imported from England, have served us no better than England... They have fed on our division... We do not have health insurance, but they do, and from that place, deny us... We do not have steady wages or the ability to set our own price, but they do, and they set our minimums at slave wages...Majority rule is not self government...It is not government at all...It does not do right, and it does not do smart...It does not lay out the facts so the people can decide...It sows division, and mis-information so it can do as it pleases...Do you think the people want the government broken to provide third rate care to the uninsured??? Do you think the people want to be broken to pay for care they may never receive, and that they cannot count on if needed??? Does anyone want the health care system cut to the bone while the economy invites pandemics??? We would not choose the situation as we have it, and the cause is the result of having no choice...We need consensus, and we will never have it so long as some political gain can be made over the rights of the minortiy... This division is dangerous, and perhaps deadly...And if the government would govern, then it would be the place where our differences are resolved equitably, and justly rather than exploited for political gain... We need democracy... Democracy which we do not have is the cause of all our problems, and democracy is the cure...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Very interesting, Mark. A law "banning desegregation."
Comment: #2
Posted by: Maurice Robson
Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:25 PM
|
|
|
|
HOW TO REFORM HEALTH CARE
A major goal of President Obama's administration is to reform health care. His aim is clear. We must cover the entire American population because 47 million of us have no health insurance. We must reduce the costs of medical services (we pay twice what the Canadians pay). We must reduce the paperwork costs that inundate doctors' offices and hospitals. We must reduce the ever-rising annual cost of our health bill. We must ease the financial burden on businesses that affects our competitiveness. And finally, we must end the 30,000 needless deaths that occur every year because people do not have health insurance.
Only a single payer system that eliminates private health insurance companies can meet these goals. The private health insurance companies must go. They are incompatible with an efficient delivery system. The private health insurance companies “cherry pick” the population, and screen out those with preexisting conditions. They impose a burdensome paperwork cost on doctors and hospitals. Their overhead costs (profits, actuarial costs, executive compensation and sales) run about 30 percent of their costs, compared with Medicare's overhead cost that runs at 2 percent. Everyone should be covered under Medicare.
Anyone familiar with the numbers knows that the savings from paperwork on the part of health providers and the reductions in overhead can pay for a single payer system. Revenues of almost 2.2 trillion dollars have to be raised. This can be done by:
1. Taxing all businesses what businesses that provide insurance pay.
2. Taxing all people through the income tax system at the same rate that those who are currently paying for health insurance pay.
3. Insuring that state and local governments pay into Medicare for their employees. In addition, they should contribute what they currently pay as part of the SCHIP programs, Medicaid, and other aid that they are paying to the health industry.
4. Include the federal government's payment for what it contributes for Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, drug subsidies, and other health care costs.
This proposal is easily understood, adds up in an economic sense, and does not raise taxes.
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese said it best. Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right.
Comment: #3
Posted by: David Hirschberg
Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
